"Others" in the Book of Mormon

[Olavarria]

Jacob 2:23-24

23) But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24) Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Its interesting how niether the Lord or Jacob mention the wives and concubines of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. The Patriarchs were rightous polygamists that the BoM honors and sets up as examples(Alma 5: 24). The problem isn't just practicing polygamy contrary to the revelations given to Father Lehi(Jacob 2:34). That is bad enough.

The bigger problem was Solomon-style polygamy. These guys were excusing their polygamous lifestyles based on the example of Solomon, not the example of the Patriarchs. What was so unique about the polygamy of Solomon?

1 Kings 11:1-3

1) But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

2)Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3) And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Two things to note about Solomon: 1)He married woman outside the covenant, non-Israelite women who worshipped other gods. 2)Solomon had many, many,many wives.

So here is my thinking:

a)Solomon married non-Israelite heathens.

b)Nephite polygamists were imitating Solomon.

Conclusion: Nephite polygamists were marrying non-Israelite heathens.

and/or

a)Solomon married many, many,many wives.

b)Nephite polygamists were imitating Solomon.

Conclusion: Nephite polygamists were marrying many, many,many wives.

Q:Where did the descendants of Nephi, Sam, Zoram, Jacob and Joseph get all these wives?

A: The unnamed "others".

[Ipso Facto]

Jacob 2:23-24

23) But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24) Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Its interesting how niether the Lord or Jacob mention the wives and concubines of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. The Patriarchs were rightous polygamists that the BoM honors and sets up as examples(Alma 5: 24). The problem isn't just practicing polygamy contrary to the revelations given to Father Lehi(Jacob 2:34). That is bad enough.

The bigger problem was Solomon-style polygamy. These guys were excusing their polygamous lifestyles based on the example of Solomon, not the example of the Patriarchs. What was so unique about the polygamy of Solomon?

1 Kings 11:1-3

1) But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

2)Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3) And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Two things to note about Solomon: 1)He married woman outside the covenant, non-Israelite women who worshipped other gods. 2)Solomon had many, many,many wives.

So here is my thinking:

a)Solomon married non-Israelite heathens.

b)Nephite polygamists were imitating Solomon.

Conclusion: Nephite polygamists were marrying non-Israelite heathens.

and/or

a)Solomon married many, many,many wives.

b)Nephite polygamists were imitating Solomon.

Conclusion: Nephite polygamists were marrying many, many,many wives.

Q:Where did the descendants of Nephi, Sam, Zoram, Jacob and Joseph get all these wives?

A: The unnamed "others".

An interesting and thought-provoking observation, HerAmun! I will add it to my long and growing list of the Book of Mormon's internal references to "others". Thanks.

[Olavarria]

An interesting and thought-provoking observation, HerAmun! I will add it to my long and growing list of the Book of Mormon's internal references to "others". Thanks.

Based on the Wenworth Letter, it seems that Joseph didn't believe in "others"; I don't think he even heard about the idea.

Then again, Joseph didn't write the BoM.

[cinepro]

Conclusion: Nephite polygamists were marrying non-Israelite heathens.

Wait, weren't the Nephites converting and marrying the natives upon arrival? It's important to remember that the Lehites were given very different instructions than the Ancient Israelites when it came to indigenous peoples interloping in their Land of Promise. Which is a lucky thing for the "others". So I doubt your first theory is right.On the subject of "others", it should always be noted that the promised land was supposed to be preserved for only those who would serve the Lord (so how did these non-Israelite heathens get there?)And Jacob was 50+ years after the Lehites landed, so assuming a marriage age of 16, there were at least three generations of people to choose from. Given even a small initial group, it could have dramatically increased in size. Heck, Lehi could have had 10 daughters that we never hear about to help get things going.Verse 25 is also interesting in light of "the others":

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

So basically, the Lord is saying that he led the Lehites out of Jerusalem so he could raise up a righteous branch by having them intermarry and become genetically indistinguishable from the heathen natives.

An interesting and thought-provoking observation, HerAmun! I will add it to my long and growing list of the Book of Mormon's internal references to "others". Thanks.

They're inferences, not "references". It's a big difference. It's almost as if the Book of Mormon authors went out of their way to not mention that there were other people there, but they slipped up in a few places (or couldn't avoid it), so we are able to detect it despite their best efforts.

[Ipso Facto]

cinepro:

They're inferences, not "references". It's a big difference. It's almost as if the Book of Mormon authors went out of their way to not mention that there were other people there, but they slipped up in a few places (or couldn't avoid it), so we are able to detect it despite their best efforts.

Agreed.

And, as Brant Gardner and others have often noted (in reference to the notion that the Book of Mormon is a tribal/lineage record), the authors of the Book of Mormon deliberately avoiding any mention of those outside their tribe is entirely consistent with an ancient record of this type, and is in fact more evidence of its antiquity.

And yet, it contains dozens of inferences concerning these others, and even a few almost-direct references -- at least if you look closely and don't cling to false a priori assumptions.

[poulsenll]

The Archeplpgical and Anthropological data show that there were others here when Lehi and his family arrived. To deny this is to put on blinders and simply ignore what is there. Brant Gardner has the right outlook on this when he informs us that as an ancient record of an ancient family. it reflects the ancient concept of them versus us. With this in mind it is not surprizing that there appears to be a deliberate attempt to not mention or at least give no details about the others. Because we know there were others there, it is not unreasonable to use this knowledge to gain a better understanding of the actions of the third and fourth generations of Nephites.

Having spent most of my life in communoties where LDS were in the minority, I have noted the extensive efforts of LDS parents to try and limit their children's association with non member youth. I have also noted this tendency to think of non LDS as them and limit our assocation with them. In spite of this, many of the youth end up marrying non members. Although our culture does not practise polygamy, if it did there would be many who would probably embrace it whether the Church condoned it or not. There is just too much of a desire among the youth to be part of the group.

I think that Jacob was caugt in the same problem and his concern was more for what the Nephites were doing and less with who they were doing it with.

Larry P

[cinepro]

And, as Brant Gardner and others have often noted (in reference to the notion that the Book of Mormon is a tribal/lineage record), the authors of the Book of Mormon deliberately avoiding any mention of those outside their tribe is entirely consistent with an ancient record of this type, and is in fact more evidence of its antiquity.

How does that explain the Nephites' constant mention of the Lamanites? Or the stories of the missions to the Lamanites, when in fact the most incredible miracles were wrought when the Lehites converted the natives to Pre-Christianity en masse upon arrival?

[LifeOnaPlate]

when in fact the most incredible miracles were wrought when the Lehites converted the natives to Pre-Christianity en masse upon arrival?

First, I don't think anyone ever said this occurred. This is a straw man, and completely so.

How does that explain the Nephites' constant mention of the Lamanites?

Ipso may have muddled it; "Lamanite" became a socio-political label, not a strict "direct descendant of the original Laman and Lemuel" label.

[The Dude]

And, as Brant Gardner and others have often noted (in reference to the notion that the Book of Mormon is a tribal/lineage record), the authors of the Book of Mormon deliberately avoiding any mention of those outside their tribe is entirely consistent with an ancient record of this type, and is in fact more evidence of its antiquity.

incredible

[ryanelwood]

Jacob 2:23-24

23) But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24) Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Its interesting how niether the Lord or Jacob mention the wives and concubines of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. The Patriarchs were rightous polygamists that the BoM honors and sets up as examples(Alma 5: 24). The problem isn't just practicing polygamy contrary to the revelations given to Father Lehi(Jacob 2:34). That is bad enough.

The bigger problem was Solomon-style polygamy. These guys were excusing their polygamous lifestyles based on the example of Solomon, not the example of the Patriarchs. What was so unique about the polygamy of Solomon?

1 Kings 11:1-3

1) But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

2)Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3) And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Two things to note about Solomon: 1)He married woman outside the covenant, non-Israelite women who worshipped other gods. 2)Solomon had many, many,many wives.

So here is my thinking:

a)Solomon married non-Israelite heathens.

b)Nephite polygamists were imitating Solomon.

Conclusion: Nephite polygamists were marrying non-Israelite heathens.

and/or

a)Solomon married many, many,many wives.

b)Nephite polygamists were imitating Solomon.

Conclusion: Nephite polygamists were marrying many, many,many wives.

Q:Where did the descendants of Nephi, Sam, Zoram, Jacob and Joseph get all these wives?

A: The unnamed "others".

I see several fundamental problems with this analysis. Jacob 2:24 specifically says that it was the fact that David and Solomon had many wives as the abomination and says nothing about marrying non-Israelites. 1 Kings also is specific about who Solomon was marying (Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites). If your going to go out on a limb and claim that it must be specifying Solomon's specific abomination of marrying non-Israelites, then you must go further and conclude that the nephites were marrying Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites. But it is cleary talking about marrying multiple wives, verses 27-30 makes it very clear that simply marrying more than one wife is the issue and not marrying non-Israelites. Verse 27 specifically says that a man is to have one wife without any specification about non-Israelites. Of course to me, according to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Moroni, and God there should not have been any "others" around anyway so there was no need to specify not marrying non-Israelites.

[Hermes]

incredible

Strike 2, The Dude.~hermes

[The Dude]

Sorry Hermes.

Going back to the OP, Her Amun's thinks the Lehites were guilty of marrying many, or even many-many-many wives, but that is only one inference. The verse says the Nephites were committing whoredoms -- not polygamy -- and the people tried to justify their unspecified actions by misunderstanding the history of Solomon and David.

Whoredoms can be lots of things: Adultery; Carnal Mind; Filthiness; Fornication; Harlot; Idolatry; Lust; Sexual Immorality.

The Nephites were probably just wife-swapping the few Israelite women that they did have, and they tried to excuse their iniquity by misquoting scripture. So, in fact, this is not proof of "others."

[charity]

The Nephites were probably just wife-swapping the few Israelite women that they did have, and they tried to excuse their iniquity by misquoting scripture. So, in fact, this is not proof of "others."

What a leap. I have never heard of anyone calling wife swapping polygamy. Do you have anything to demosntrate this idea of yours?

[Mudcat]

Seems like its just as plausible that Abraham, Issac and Jacob weren't mentioned because they were less notable polygamist and there actions were equally unapproved, just not mentioned. Either way the argument for or against the plausibility of Abraham, Issac and Jacob specifically is an argument from silence.

[Bender]

Ipso Facto Posted Today, 03:05 PM

Agreed.

And, as Brant Gardner and others have often noted (in reference to the notion that the Book of Mormon is a tribal/lineage record), the authors of the Book of Mormon deliberately avoiding any mention of those outside their tribe is entirely consistent with an ancient record of this type, and is in fact more evidence of its antiquity.

And yet, it contains dozens of inferences concerning these others, and even a few almost-direct references -- at least if you look closely and don't cling to false a priori assumptions.

Do we have an ancient record of comparable size to the BoM that does not mention other groups? I understand that groups may have an us verses them mentality, as well as a better than others mentality, but I'm not sure that translates into not mentioning them in their records. I can see then saying less than positive things about them, and the accuracy of the info would be suspect. I could see short documents not mentioning other groups, but do we see any larger records of this type(BoM) not mentioning some of the other groups they would be interacting with, especially ones you are being incorporated into? Also what passages in the BoM are you suggesting contain almost direct references?

ryanelwood

I see several fundamental problems with this analysis. Jacob 2:24 specifically says that it was the fact that David and Solomon had many wives as the abomination and says nothing about marrying non-Israelites. 1 Kings also is specific about who Solomon was marying (Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites). If your going to go out on a limb and claim that it must be specifying Solomon's specific abomination of marrying non-Israelites, then you must go further and conclude that the nephites were marrying Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites. But it is cleary talking about marrying multiple wives, verses 27-30 makes it very clear that simply marrying more than one wife is the issue and not marrying non-Israelites. Verse 27 specifically says that a man is to have one wife without any specification about non-Israelites. Of course to me, according to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Moroni, and God there should not have been any "others" around anyway so there was no need to specify not marrying non-Israelites.

Interesting that you quote from an ancient document that does mention specifically other groups. No need to infer ones bias that that the text does mention others.

[e=mc2]

Cinepro:

They're inferences, not "references". It's a big difference. It's almost as if the Book of Mormon authors went out of their way to not mention that there were other people there, but they slipped up in a few places (or couldn't avoid it), so we are able to detect it despite their best efforts.

Um, Brant Gardner's new commentary (well, 2007, new enough) discusses the reasons why. It's a pretty decent commentary ya know......

[Brant Gardner]

Do we have an ancient record of comparable size to the BoM that does not mention other groups?

Documents from antiquity that are the result of a conscious editing of records into a cohesive narrative of the size of the Book of Mormon are very rare. The examples of most of the longer texts are compilations, not the work of a single author/editor. So just the problem of finding a comparable sized text is difficult.

I understand that groups may have an us verses them mentality, as well as a better than others mentality, but I'm not sure that translates into not mentioning them in their records.

The Book of Mormon mentions other peoples all of the time. Typically, they have the collective label of Lamanites, but specifically during the mission to the Lamanites we get mention of the cities with their different kings. While Ammonihah was nominally part of the Zarahemla hegemony, it does not appear to have been a very stalwart member, keeping itself quite separate. Since the people in that area of the world tended to refer to themselves by the name of their city (there were no real nations, certainly not nations with names) we have the Book of Mormon mentioning other city-states rather appropriately.

What you are saying is that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention the kind of names you might expect of other nations from the Old World, which were nations rather than city-states. That would be anachronistic for the Book of Mormon in the New World. That very expectation is incorrect. Suggesting that the Book of Mormon should mention something in a way that would actually be incorrect is a very interesting way to create a criticism of the text.

[katherine the great]

Seems like its just as plausible that Abraham, Issac and Jacob weren't mentioned because they were less notable polygamist and there actions were equally unapproved, just not mentioned. Either way the argument for or against the plausibility of Abraham, Issac and Jacob specifically is an argument from silence.

Just for the record, Isaac was not a polygamist.

[Mudcat]

Just for the record, Isaac was not a polygamist.

Yeah your right, I guess he was to busy mixing drinks on The Love Boat to get a second wife.

edit add..

you need to tell Her Amun to quit dropping 'trick' polygamists into his threads

[The Dude]

What a leap. I have never heard of anyone calling wife swapping polygamy. Do you have anything to demosntrate this idea of yours?

A leap? Me?

Charity, read the scripture. It says only that the people engaged in whoredoms and iniquities which they excused by misunderstanding Solomon and David. You infer that the whoredoms and iniquities were polygamy, but that's not specified in the text. Don't trust the apologists to read the scriptures for you!

This much-touted scripture is not evidence of non-Israelite "others" because it does not require a any non-Lehite women to create a mere whoredom.

Prove me wrong.

[Bender]

Brant Gardner Posted Today, 07:01 PM

The Book of Mormon mentions other peoples all of the time. Typically, they have the collective label of Lamanites, but specifically during the mission to the Lamanites we get mention of the cities with their different kings. While Ammonihah was nominally part of the Zarahemla hegemony, it does not appear to have been a very stalwart member, keeping itself quite separate. Since the people in that area of the world tended to refer to themselves by the name of their city (there were no real nations, certainly not nations with names) we have the Book of Mormon mentioning other city-states rather appropriately.

What you are saying is that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention the kind of names you might expect of other nations from the Old World, which were nations rather than city-states. That would be anachronistic for the Book of Mormon in the New World. That very expectation is incorrect. Suggesting that the Book of Mormon should mention something in a way that would actually be incorrect is a very interesting way to create a criticism of the text.

The BoM doesn't mention any group except for three that were supposed to come from the old world. When details of peoples or groups heritage are mentioned that were considered part of the larger group of Lamanites or Nephites, they always are from the Mulekites or Lehite lineage. No mention of any other group we can identify without inferring from the text what I think we want from it. I might add this is what we would expect if Joseph and others made up the text. The idea that the Indians were descendants of Israel did exist in Joseph's time, as well as the idea of a 6,000 old earth was generally believed, so it would seem that would to be a good explanation based on what the common man believed. I know the reality is people have been in the Americas for over 10,000 years, so if one is to except this as well as the BoM being true, one must reinterpret the text. Of course many members have no trouble excepting that the text reads more as a hemispheric model, but they also believe in a 6,000 year old earth, etc.

The text never implies that Ammonihah like other city states are from any other group than the three already mentioned. You can make the assumption that they are, but it remains an assumption since the text never once mentions anyone in those cities being from any other group then the three mentioned. In your example of Ammonihah the only mention of heritage is Amulek saying he was a nephite, Alma saying to the them, our father Lehi. You have to go very far afield to read into the text other groups, but I understand the motivation to do so.

Documents from antiquity that are the result of a conscious editing of records into a cohesive narrative of the size of the Book of Mormon are very rare. The examples of most of the longer texts are compilations, not the work of a single author/editor. So just the problem of finding a comparable sized text is difficult.

I guess that would be a no. The BoM is also supposed to be the work of many authors like the Bible except maybe for one editor. I think comparing the two in this regard seems reasonable although not a perfect comparison.

[cinepro]

Also, aren't "marrying heathens" and "polygamy" kind of mutually exclusive? Doesn't someone kind of have to be a believer to go along with polygamy, especially if it is justified with an appeal to the Old Testament?

[LeSellers]

Also, aren't "marrying heathens" and "polygamy" kind of mutually exclusive? Doesn't someone kind of have to be a believer to go along with polygamy, especially if it is justified with an appeal to the Old Testament?

Were the Hebrews the only culture to practice polgyny, you might have a point.

But, since polygyny is a quasi-universal practice, there is no reason to assume anyone would have sole resort to the Old Testament to initiate the practice.

Anthropological consensus is that man is a polygynous species. One evidence for this is that men are larger (on average) than women. All "other" primates with this characteristic are polygynous, ergo, man is naturally polygynous.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

You might as well say man is naturally masochistic.

[Brant Gardner]

The BoM doesn't mention any group except for three that were supposed to come from the old world. When details of peoples or groups heritage are mentioned that were considered part of the larger group of Lamanites or Nephites, they always are from the Mulekites or Lehite lineage.

Since the text uses "Lamanite" as a generic term and not a lineage term, your assertion doesn't match the text. Lamanite is used generically as early as the book of Jacob. When the book wants to deal with specific peoples, it associates them by their city (appropriately, as I noted).

No mention of any other group we can identify without inferring from the text what I think we want from it.

Are you saying that when you read something into the text it must be right, and if I read something else into it I must be wrong? Could you suggest some way that we could use some actual methodology that might allow us to get past reading the text the way we want to and discover what it actually says?

The text never implies that Ammonihah like other city states are from any other group than the three already mentioned.

I suggest that we won't get anywhere until we know how to read "Lamanite" and "Nephite." You are using them as if they are lineage designators in the text. Based on the way they are used in the text and the ability of a people to be Nephite one day and Lamanite the next (though specifically defined by a different designation, such as the name of a person who leads the group) the do not function as lineages at all.

Based on the uses of the terms in the text, the evidence does not support the conclusion you draw from those words.

In your example of Ammonihah the only mention of heritage is Amulek saying he was a nephite, Alma saying to the them, our father Lehi.

Fascinating example. Since most ancient texts don't provide assumed knowledge, but only exceptions (the Bible is this type of text) you are suggesting that the being a Nephite had to be declared because it wasn't the common assumption. That was my point, wasn't it... or do you read that differently?

The BoM is also supposed to be the work of many authors like the Bible except maybe for one editor. I think comparing the two in this regard seems reasonable although not a perfect comparison.

Then you do not understand the redaction of either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. The Bible was written as separate works and many of the individual books had different redactors. The Book of Mormon was conceived by a single mind and most written by a single person. You have some possible comparability in the Nephi-Omni sections, but even those are holographic in the Book of Mormon and in the Bible would not be so tightly ascribed to the writer.