The Wicked Lamanites' Incompetence

[Gohan]

How many non-Mormons believe that the story is reasonable, in the

context of preColumbian America?

But, it appears that King Laman (or perhaps Laman, Jr.) dispatched

at least two "armies" to track the Nephites herds, flocks, kids, etc.

and all they managed to do was to get themselves lost.

Whole armies, that do not have a single able scout who can

backtrack, to get to Nephi, or to Shilom, or Shemlon, or wherever?

That is beyond incompetence -- it must have been planned treason.

That is the only possible answer.

Armies of Lamanites that can track the Nephites for two days,

but then cannot follow the same track backwards?

How in the heck did they ever hunt down those wild beasts

whose skins they wore about their loins? And, having hunted

them, how did they ever find their way home?

Sounds a lot like Solomon Spalding's impossible preColumbian

troop movements to me.

UD

How the fetch did non-Mormon belief or Solomon Spaulding got brought into the discussion? Did you read what I suggested or did you just quote it and give whatever else you wanted to say?

Anyway, if you're going to read this, I'll say this as well. Not all of them had the same bleeding skills, there's a difference between the hunters and the soldiers. Perhaps the soldiers couldn't track the Limhites because they weren't the ones who caught the animals they got their little loincloths from?

Is that speculation? Yeah, it's speculation, but so is your idea that all Lamanites are skilled trackers. No offense.

[Log]

There are some claims written about the Book of Mormon by in-house intellects that instantly aroused my ire upon reading them.

One of these is the idea, advanced by Orson Scott Card, that the Mulekites fabricated their geneaology and origins in order to compete with the Nephite claims of kingship (Mos. 25:13). This idea, if accepted, means the prophet-king Mosiah1 was wrong in accepting the pedigree of Zarahemla (Omni 1:14-19) and that Nephi1's prophetic promise to his brethren and the entire house of Ishmael that they would know of a surety of the destruction of Jerusalem (1 Ne. 7:13) would also be either false or the fulfilment would be unrecorded in the Book of Mormon, when the opposite view was taken by the prophet Nephi2 (Hel. 8:21) based on the record of Mosiah1, and again accepted at face value by Mormon. The truth of the Mulekite claims is a rather important point in the contexts in which it arises, and Card's notion seemed to me to be crafted for the purpose of illustrating how much smarter than the average Book of Mormon reader Card thinks he is.

This "Card vibe" came up again when I read an article on FARMS which touched tangentially upon the topic of this thread, written by none other than Brant Gardner, who has seen fit to repeat his all-too-clever idea here - an earlier chronicler, whose account was accepted at face value by Mormon, simply fabricated a reason for the Lamanites' failure to track the people of Limhi through their escape route - that they lost the track - for literary reasons - to satisfy a purported desire for "reasons" for events in records of said events - and that this literary reason is the "most logically imputed" reason for the assertion within the text, because, in Brother Gardner's view, the account within the text doesn't allow a route of transmission for the Lamanites' reasons for stopping the search to the Nephite chronicler.

Here's a quick recap of the episode:

Limhi's people escape. (Mos. 22:11 - 13)

The Lamanite guard pursue. (Mos. 22:15)

The Lamanite guards lost the track of Limhi's people after two days and were lost. (Mos. 22:16)

The Lamanite guards who lost Limhi wander for days and find the priests of Noah, headed by Amulon, who, with their families, join the Lamanite guards. (Mos. 23:30 - 35)

The Lamanite guards, mixed with the Amulonites, discover the people of Alma1. (Mos. 23:35)

The Lamanite guards bring their families and, with the Amulonites, subjugate the people of Alma1. (Mos. 23:37 - 39)

The Amulonites, and their children, persecute the people of Alma1. (Mos. 24:8 - 15)

The Lord delivers the people of Alma1. (Mos. 24:16 -25)

There appears to be sufficient time and contact by the people of Alma1 with the very Lamanite guards who lost Limhi that the account of the reasons the Lamanites did not catch Limhi could have very easily been transmitted to a Nephite chronicler - say, Alma1 himself - that there seems to be no valid reason to doubt the account of the Book of Mormon.

Indeed, the Lamanites could very well have told the Amulonites that this was the case, and perhaps the Amulonites could have said something of this to the people of Alma1. Along those lines, while it is most reasonable to assume the children of the priests of Noah mentioned in Mos. 25:12 were those left behind in the land of Nephi-Lehi when the Lamanites conquered it, it is by no means impossible that it might have reference to some of the children of the Amulonites that may have joined the people of Alma1 during their escape; in that case, again, we have a direct contact with people who would have known whether the Lamanites actually lost the track of the people of Limhi.

In either event, there seems no reason to doubt that the information that Lamanite guards lost the track of Limhi's people and for this reason ceased pursuit could have been very easily transmitted to the Nephites. That they were in unfamiliar territory is also shown by the fact that they wandered for days without finding their way back to the land of Nephi until they ran into the people of Alma1, who gave them directions to it.

Given that there are several routes of transmission of data for the contested claim within the text itself, what grounds did there ever exist to doubt it?

A similar irritation arises with reference to Brother Gardner's presumption of the falsity of Mormon's positive assertion, again based on an earlier chronicler, that a certain group of remains had been identified and disposed of. Does Brother Gardner think that the bodies of dead soldiers can carry no identifiable equipment, such as weaponry and clothing? Or does he simply think ancient (or even modern) prophets positively affirm a thing is true because a good story requires it and that literary reason suffices to call a thing true in a holy record consecrated to a God who cannot lie?

And, for UD, the OP: Seriously? The guards were hunters? Sons of the forest? The Lamanites were a homogenous group of TV-style Indian scouts? No urban Lamanites, nor soldier caste? The old walking through a river trick of masking one's tracks didn't work in the past? Sounds like a failure of imagination, on several levels, coupled with a desire to nitpick.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Is that possible?

In the absence of detailed information, many things are possible.

If a Lamanite army consisted of three warriors, then two whole

armies could have been comprised of half a dozen Lamanites.

If they had the mentality of the Marx Brothers, then they might

have spent all their time just tripping over each other's feet.

But, if we find a story in our religion's books, we are inclined

to believe it and defend it, just because it is part of our lives.

If the Limhi story never appeared in the Book of Mosiah ---- if we

only read that account in James J. Strang's Vorhee Plates ---- then

we could laugh, and say of course it is ridiculous.

But, since it is not a tale from apostates or Gentile fiction writers,

of course we will strain our mental muscles in order to justify it.

Perhaps King Limhi dissolved some stupid pills into the Lamanites'

strong wine? That, or some extracts of rye ergot...

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...a desire to nitpick.

Am I the only one who sees this "nit" as requiring a

shovel and a couple of rakes, to "pick?"

Reads like fiction to me.

Bob Southey did a much better job of composing such PreColumbian

forest conflicts in his "Madoc." I can almost believe "Madoc,"

at some points -- namely where it copies the Cortez account.

But Limihi's escape from the Lamanites?

I've seen Bob Hope / Bing Crosby movies that were more believable.

UD

[urroner]

But, if we find a story in our religion's books, we are inclined

to believe it and defend it, just because it is part of our lives.

But if the story is the the religious books of others and we don't accept those religious books, we are inclined to disbelieve it and attack it, just because we want to purge such vileness from the our society and dissuade them from such silliness. We just want them to believe like us since what we believe and is in our religious books are the truth and if they don't believe it, they must be corrected. They must be assimilated.

[noel00]

In the absence of detailed information, many things are possible.

If a Lamanite army consisted of three warriors, then two whole

armies could have been comprised of half a dozen Lamanites.

If they had the mentality of the Marx Brothers, then they might

have spent all their time just tripping over each other's feet.

But, if we find a story in our religion's books, we are inclined

to believe it and defend it, just because it is part of our lives.

If the Limhi story never appeared in the Book of Mosiah ---- if we

only read that account in James J. Strang's Vorhee Plates ---- then

we could laugh, and say of course it is ridiculous.

But, since it is not a tale from apostates or Gentile fiction writers,

of course we will strain our mental muscles in order to justify it.

Perhaps King Limhi dissolved some stupid pills into the Lamanites'

strong wine? That, or some extracts of rye ergot...

UD

Dale I notice these chapters in the graph of Spalding and Rigdon attributions (Jockers) have both red (Spalding) and purple (Rigdon). Can you explain why?

[CV75]

The thousands of people of Limhi gather their cattle, sheep, pigs, dogs, etc.

and sneak out of their walled city by night. The Lamanites encircling the city

are all asleep and do not see or hear this mass departure.

Later, these sons of the forest, whose great vocation is stalking wild game

through the Meso-American wilderness, lose the trail of the Limhi people.

Think of it -- cows, pigs, goats, sheep, dogs and kids, all leaving their

droppings along the trail, and the Lamanite army has no idea where to look

for them -- cannot follow an entire city-state of refugees a few dozen miles

through Guatemala.

What dolts! Those Lamanite hunters -- who could not even locate the next

waterhole along the beaten path to Zarahemla!

Can we imagine the Sioux, or Cheyenne, or Pawnee, being so incompetent

as unable to follow the droppings of an animal herd?

Rare stuff, these sneaking-around-in-the-dark-in-Guatemala stories!

UD

.

Mosiah 22: 15 says

[Gervin]

Dale I notice these chapters in the graph of Spalding and Rigdon attributions (Jockers) have both red (Spalding) and purple (Rigdon). Can you explain why?

.. or pick up the trail and tell us what you see?

[Uncle Dale]

...Kind of like in

[Uncle Dale]

Dale I notice these chapters in the graph of Spalding and Rigdon attributions (Jockers) have both red (Spalding) and purple (Rigdon). Can you explain why?

Of course solomon Spalding has a bunch of his own

sneak-around-in-the-night stratagems in the Oberlin

manuscript --- but Book of Mormon scholars generally

have concluded that there is no connection with the BoM.

The Jockers' authorship attributions show some of these

"historical" chapters in Mosiah and Alma as having been

written by Spalding (red) and added to by Rigdon (blue).

Again, most BoM scholars do not accept such an interpretation.

UD

[CV75]

Bingo...

Mosiah 22: 15 says

[CV75]

So, we are agreed that the objective observer should take this story to be true?

Yes, when the objective observer is also:

one who identifies or resonates with the remnant of the house of Israel, the Jew, the Gentile;

one for whom it be wisdom in God that he should read it;

one that would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that he receives these things;

one who ponders it in his heart;

one that would still ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true (with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ);

one that would not mock at these things because of the prophets' weakness in writing;

one that would acknowledge the value of a small abridgment, respecting that it is not a full account, because of the commandment which the editor received, accepting that this record is the less-than hundredth part of the things the editor saw written of his people;

one that would believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which he shall have; or one that is a Jew, that would have other witness besides him whom his people saw and heard.

[Uncle Dale]

Yes, when the objective observer is also:

...

one that would still ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ,

if these things are not true

...

I just meant a trained scientist -- an expert in MesoAmerican PreColumbian

cultures -- an anthropologist specializing in the texts of that era -- of

the migrations of peoples -- of the composition of their herds and flocks.

Should such scientists, after examining the Mosiah text, logically and

rationally agree that it bears all the hallmarks of true history, and

is very unlikely to be fictional or fabulous?

If so -- then perhaps I should simply accept the record as historical, and stop

asking why the Lamanite hunting dogs could not smell the fresh droppings

of ten thousand goats, sheep, donkeys, cows, chickens, horses and pigs...

Didn't Margaret Barker once say that the book was very likely true?

UD

.

[CV75]

I just meant a trained scientist

I think that would be entirely up to him and (considering what it takes to believe the book) whether he would, in the name of a limited and misguided understanding of objectivity, intentionally and artificially handicap himself against identifying or resonating with the remnant of the house of Israel, the Jew, the Gentile; being one for whom it is wisdom in God that he should read it; remembering how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that he receives these things; pondering it in his heart; asking God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true (with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ); not mocking at these things because of the prophets' weakness in writing; acknowledging the value of a small abridgment, respecting that it is not a full account because of the commandment which the editor received, or accepting that this record is the less-than hundredth part of the things the editor saw written of his people; believing the gospel of Jesus Christ, which he shall have; or if a Jew, that would have other witness besides that which his people saw and heard, or otherwise cut off his nose to spite his face, or not. If not, and if he were sufficiently trained and disciplined as a scientist, he could still look at the book on one hand quite critically, and on the other, accept and benefit from its intended purpose. I think there are trained scientists of both types.

[Uncle Dale]

...asking God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ,

if these things are not true

...

No, I meant leaving the supernatural entirely out of our attempt at

scientific examination. If Science begins to admit/favor somebody's

profession of the supernatural, then it is no longer objective Science.

However, if a person begins by professing a testimony (say, in the

Reorganized LDS D&C sections), then of course it will be very difficult

for that person to set aside his/her reliance upon the supernatural.

I do not expect the participants here to deny their testimonies --

but only to tell me whether or not the application of objective scientific

examination makes the Limhi account more believeable (or less believeable)

for a non-Mormon, like myself.

I would not want to be found wanting in rational thought or in

a careful application of logic to the text. If I have missed doing

that, then I should be informed of my mistake.

If the Lamanites could NOT back-track their own trail, to return

to Limhi's deserted city (and from thence to Nephi), then I'd like

to hear an explanation which does not first of all require me to

pray to God, to know if the purported history is correct or not.

UD

[CV75]

tell me whether or not the application of objective scientific examination makes the Limhi account more believeable (or less believeable) for a non-Mormon, like myself.

Seeing something as believable is an awfully subjective experience, as objective as someone might try to be. It seems that several plausible objective, scientific (of one discipline or another) explanations have been given, such as 5, 8, 19, and 20. Coupled with such things as: the smallest unit that the writers of record used to qualify a group as an army or a people; whether the people of Limhi that actually departed only a subset of all the people of Limhi; the kind of army; who exactly was lost, or lost relative to whom (in 22:16, were the people lost to the army, or did the people "lose" or escape from the army? In 23:30, was the army lost to the people who had spies watching them, or was its whereabouts unaccounted for to the rest of the army?); weather, commotion, bribery and other intrigue, it could be believed that the Lamanites got lost (not being able to back-track their own trail may not be only way they got lost from or to themselves or others in the wilderness).

[Uncle Dale]

...bribery and other intrigue

...

Like I said earlier, planned treason is the only answer.

These same Lamanites bargain with Alma, to be shown the

way back home to Nephi. They bargain with their enemy!

And, like a nice policeman in the park, Alma directs the

whining little boy back to his anxious mother.

The (seeming) fact that the Lamanite armies were not

court-martialed, for gross incompetence, once Alma got

them back home speaks for itself.

The Nephites thereafter occasionally "go up to Nephi,"

and associate with those treasonous Lamanites, who let

Limhi escape with a wink and a nod.

In other words, you simply traveled uphill (away from the

Sea East or the Sea West, of course) in order to go from

Zarahemla to Nephi. The trip seemed to take about two weeks

(counting some "wandering" in the wilderness).

It took a day and a half for a Nephite to walk from the

Sea East to the Sea West. So, if he was not walking in

the correct direction, he would sooner or later end up

on the seashore, if he missed the trail from Zarahemla

to Nephi. But the Lamanites cannot even remember to

"go down" in order to reach the Nephite lands, to which

Limhi would have logically tried to escape.

Perhaps it was the Lamanites' first exploration out of Nephi?

Had they never ventured north or south prior to that time?

UD

[cdowis]

It seems that the key to this discussion is centered on one phrase, "they could no longer follow their tracks". His single-minded interpretation of this phrase leads him to the conclusion that the BOM is false.

So, let's help Dale out here. I have a few ideas, but let's see what you all can suggest.

• Consider the terrain, and the possibility of sudden, severe weather. A sudden, heavy flood forces them off the track, and they get lost while they stubbornly attempt to get back on track.
  two opposing armies -- we do not know the relative size of the two armies, and how they were deployed. I suggested, for example, a rear guard which may have forced the Lamanites off the track, and slowed them down. The Lamanites may have had to go around a valley which would be easily defended. They got lost.
  the heard-start for the Nephites. We do not know how long it took to assemble and dispatch the army (the Nephites had plenty of time to prepare
  how prepared the Lamanite army were for an extended pursuit (again the Nephites had plenty of time to gather supplies for an extended march
  how quickly the Lamanites were able to close the distance -- how far away were the Nephites when they stopped their pursuit, and how close were they to the lands inhabited by the Nephites
  how did the Nephite tribute affect their hunter, gathering skills. Where indeed did they get their animal skin loin cloth -- did they do the hunting or were they part of the 50% tribute from the Nephites.
  the possibility of sabotage, such as destruction of bridges. When the Lamanites had to take an alternative route around a destroyed bridge, they got lost.

All of these factors are ignored by Dale, as he focuses on his school-boy, Spaulding version of the BOM, while real world possibilities elude him.

For Dale, "there is only one possibility", the BOM is false.

[Uncle Dale]

It seems that the key to this discussion is centered on one phrase, "they could no longer follow their tracks". Dale is assuming that they are closely following a train of a large body of individuals with their animals, and suddenly the trail disappears from view. The Lamanites then turn around and are unable to follow their own trail back home. His single minded interpretation of this phrase leads him to the conclusion that the BOM is false.

So, let's help Dale out here. Is there a reasonable explanation that they stopped persuing the Nephites, and in the ensuing retreat, were unable to follow their own tracks back home.

I have a few ideas, but let's see what you all can suggest. We have:

the terrain, and weather,

I cannot imagine a "terrain" so strange that animal droppings would

suddenly become undetectable -- but you may have a point when you

mention "weather." In several places in the BoM the ancient Americans

are cursed (or threatened) with an "east wind" -- perhaps coming off

the Gulf of Mexico -- in other words, a hurricane. A hurricane that

hit with its "eye" remaining more or less over the traveling Nephites,

could have protected them from their pursuers. Still, we might expect

that a few of the Nephites and their animals would have been captured.

two opposing armies -- we do not know the relative size of the two armies, and how they were deployed

Sounds to me like the Limhi people had been decimated in the recent wars --

with mostly children, women and old men left alive -- plus Ammon's folks.

Perhaps 10,000 Nephites and maybe 1,000 of them warriors.

As for the Lamanites, they would have had no reason to take along herds

of animals, or carry heavy bundles of gold and silver. They would have

had no need for kids -- women -- seniors.

the head-start for the Nephites. We do not know how long it took to assemble

and dispatch the army (the Nephites had plenty of time to prepare

That's a reasonable assumption. Say 10,000 Nephites with 20,000 animals

snuck out "the back way" while a couple of hundred Lamanite guards were

sleeping -- never hearing the inevitable commotion, because of heavily

drugged wine. Say that the Nephites were 8 hours' gone, before the first

Lamanite guard woke up, climbed up the tower and discerned which way the

escaping multitude was heading.

Say that the Lamanite guards had strict orders to stay stationed around

the city walls, and could not themselves pursue the escaping multitude --

instead of that, they send runners to King Laman and two days later the

first "army" of their brethren appears. Even though the Lamanites can

move swiftly through the forest, the multitude have a 2 or 3 day lead.

The Lamanite forward scouts should have been able to catch up with

at least a few of the stragglers, however --- old guys like myself on

crutches, moving at one mile per hour.

how prepared the Lamanite army were for an extended pursuit (again the

Nephites had plenty of time to gather supplies for an extended march

The Lamanites had at least enough military organization to at times

suddenly appear on the periphery of Noah's/Limhi's habitations, ready

for warfare. There is no reason to think that they were too weak or

too inexperienced, to get from Limhi's city to Zarahemla.

how quickly the Lamanites were able to close the distance -- how far away were

the Nephites when they stopped their pursuit, and how close were they to the

lands inhabited by the Nephites

I suppose that the Lamanites could have at least "closed the distance with

any Nephites who died along the way -- or were too lame or sick to move.

How fast can a pregnant woman move through the jungle?

how did the Nephite tribute affect their hunter, gathering skills. Where indeed

did they get their loin cloths -- did they do the hunting or were they part of

the 50% tribute from the Nephites.

According to the Book of Mormon, they were a warrior people. Even if many

of their people had "gone soft" in living off Nephite tribute, we still see

the Lamanites prevailing in several battles. They had not "gone soft" to

the extent that they could not conduct warfare.

the possibility of sabotage, such as destruction of bridges. When the Lamanites

had to take an alternative route around a destroyed bridge, for example, is it

possible that they got lost

Given how frequently the Lehites seem to have gotten themselves "lost" in

the relatively small extent of MesoAmerica, I'd guess that not too many

highway "bridges" needed crossing -- or were ever constructed. I don't think

we are talking about a beaten path from Limhi to Zarahemla, elevated over

water bodies the size of the Mississippi.

All of these factors are ignored by Dale, as he focuses on his Spaulding version of the BOM. He wants to fill in details of the mighty hunter, school-boy model of the Lamanites, while other real world possibilities elude him.

Of course Solomon Spalding wrote equally implausible episodes of

preColumbian troop movements and migrations through the wilderness,

in his own, preserved fiction. For example, he wrote a story of

heroes sneaking into the enemy camp to murder the sleeping foe,

much like Teancum performed his night-time feat. But we need not

resort to Spalding, in order to see problems in the Limhi account.

The best answers I've seen postulated so far are:

1. A hurricane hit, in such a way as to preserve the Nephites, but

to halt the Lamanites -- destroying even their path back home.

2. Some of the Lamanites were treasonous -- they did not pursue

the Nephites with all the vigor and skill that loyal troops would have.

They wanted the pursuit to fail, for unstated reasons.

3. Perhaps some of the slower-moving Nephites and their animals

actually were overtaken and captured by the Lamanites. Perhaps they

even recovered the gold and silver being carried by some of the

over-burdened Nephite porters. Having captured such riches, the

Lamanites abandoned their pursuit, in order to plunder. ---- The

Nephite chroniclers were embarrassed at this semi-victory and so

they did not bother to record it. The plundering Lamanites, focused

upon taking gold, silver and other riches, had their military

discipline break down. Perhaps they even indulged in captured

"doctored" Nephite wine, and were again too intoxicated to pursue.

If we go for the hurricane explanation, then my "wicked Lamanites Incompetence"

theory could be a mistake. Otherwise, I think we are forced to admit that

they did not live up to the reputation we generally associate with them.

UD

[erichard]

...Think of it -- cows, pigs, goats, sheep, dogs and kids, all leaving their

droppings along the trail, and the Lamanite army has no idea where to look

for them -- cannot follow an entire city-state of refugees a few dozen miles

through Guatemala.

...UD

Hi UD,

You make a good point, but not a conclusive one. They had a head start and were highly motivated to get away. Maybe they followed the animals and picked up their poo. And maybe they walked in rivers for distances to confuse their trail. Maybe they had other tricks.

Maybe the Lamanites had been so lazy and drank so much wine for too long and their tracking and enduring skills were lacking.

The Priddis version of this event has them leaving the city of Cuzco and traveling first north-west and then basically west across the Vilcabamba wilderness.

She explains: "It would not be difficult to get lost there. Even today it is easy to become lost in the Vilcabamba wilderness."

Richard

[Log]

It seems that the key to this discussion is centered on one phrase, "they could no longer follow their tracks". His single-minded interpretation of this phrase leads him to the conclusion that the BOM is false.

You have confused effect with cause.

[cdowis]

3. Perhaps some of the slower-moving Nephites and their animals

actually were overtaken and captured by the Lamanites. Perhaps they

even recovered the gold and silver being carried by some of the

over-burdened Nephite porters. Having captured such riches, the

Lamanites abandoned their pursuit, in order to plunder. ---- The

Nephite chroniclers were embarrassed at this semi-victory and so

they did not bother to record it. The plundering Lamanites, focused

upon taking gold, silver and other riches, had their military

discipline break down. Perhaps they even indulged in captured

"doctored" Nephite wine, and were again too intoxicated to pursue.

If we go for the hurricane explanation, then my "wicked Lamanites Incompetence"

theory could be a mistake. Otherwise, I think we are forced to admit that

they did not live up to the reputation we generally associate with them.

The gold and silver thing is interesting. They may have deliberately left caches of gold for the pursuing Lamanites. In a sense, they were bribed to allow the Nephites to escape. A little extra wine to seal the deal, as you suggested.

But this still leaves the problem of getting lost.

A hurricane is possible, but a large gully flood would do the job. That would disrupt their movement, going several miles to get around it, and would also erase their previous track.

[CV75]

They bargain with their enemy!

Perhaps it was the Lamanites' first exploration out of Nephi? Had they never ventured north or south prior to that time?

Evidently money talks, and not every citizen or soldier or his unit is loyal to the king. Perhaps the very small "army" could no longer follow the small group's tracks because both parties split up; therefore they (the small group or the smaller split-up groups) were lost, to both paid-off and loyalist pursuers alike (one was paid to "get lost" the other just lost), in the wilderness. Perhaps the split-up army teams were lost to each other and took a few days to regroup. Perhaps elements in the pursuing army sabotaged their team's efforts for the opportunity to do other profitable things during the period they were lost to their command. Being in the wilderness is emphasized; perhaps the people of Limhi employed some effective psyops to confuse and delay their superstitious pursuers. Someone also gave the Afghanistan comparison for groups that seldom leave their immediate territory.

[Uncle Dale]

...A hurricane is possible

...

It would offer the easiest explanation for entire armies

unable to backtrack -- for even their hunting dogs not

knowing how to go back through the devastation and debris.

The problem with that answer, is that Alma is able to

direct the lost Lamanite armies back to Nephi. If Alma

could point the way back (turn south at the next hill, etc.),

then I would suppose that the hurricane chaos was not total.

In order to come up with a reasonable set of "possibles,"

that explain the account in Mosiah, I think that Occam's

Razor will have to be greatly dulled.

The account of Alma's people escaping and eluding pursuit

at almost the same time as Limhi's escape, makes this

sound a lot like fiction -- full of improbabilities and

coincidences -- a sort of antique soap opera.

What does Blake Ostler have to say about these stories?

UD

[cdowis]

First we get "there's only one possibility". Now that you are faced with alternatives, we get "Well, Occam's razor tells us it is fiction."