Jeredites

[Freedom]

I have never felt comfortable with 'the church is true and there science is false' approach. I also have never understood the need to interpret an ancient text using modern definitions of words and modern interpretations of syntax. It is not possible to draw conclusive interpretations of this matter; those who do are finding justification in the text for their preconceived ideas. This same approach is used by followers of the creeds.

[zerinus]

There were seven families that came over with Jared and his brother. We have a history of only the descendents of Jared and his brother. They were called jaredites because they were descendents of Jared and his brother. We have no record of the others or any idea what they called themselves. I doubt if they called themselves Jaredites or considered themselves part of his descendents. It is far more likely that they parted ways as soon as they arrived. Mesoamerican mythology suggests that the inhabitants of the Americas came from seven caves and formed seven different reoples independent of each other. Ether is quite emphatic in calling the participents in the war of extinction as his people and his (Coriantmr's) household. In other words those of common descent from Jared and his brother.

Larry P

I prefer to go by what the text says:

Ether 6:

16 And the friends of Jared and his brother were in number about twenty and two souls; and they also begat sons and daughters before they came to the promised land; and therefore they began to be many.

17 And they were taught to walk humbly before the Lord; and they were also taught from on high.

18 And it came to pass that they began to spread upon the face of the land, and to multiply and to till the earth; and they did wax strong in the land.

19 And the brother of Jared began to be old, and saw that he must soon go down to the grave; wherefore he said unto Jared: Let us gather together our people that we may number them, that we may know of them what they will desire of us before we go down to our graves.

20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons.

21 And it came to pass that they did number their people; and after that they had numbered them, they did desire of them the things which they would that they should do before they went down to their graves.

22 And it came to pass that the people desired of them that they should anoint one of their sons to be a king over them.

23 And now behold, this was grievous unto them. And the brother of Jared said unto them: Surely this thing leadeth into captivity.

24 But Jared said unto his brother: Suffer them that they may have a king. And therefore he said unto them: Choose ye out from among our sons a king, even whom ye will.

25 And it came to pass that they chose even the firstborn of the brother of Jared; and his name was Pagag. And it came to pass that he refused and would not be their king. And the people would that his father should constrain him, but his father would not; and he commanded them that they should constrain no man to be their king.

26 And it came to pass that they chose all the brothers of Pagag, and they would not.

27 And it came to pass that neither would the sons of Jared, even all save it were one; and Orihah was anointed to be king over the people.

28 And he began to reign, and the people began to prosper; and they became exceedingly rich.

29 And it came to pass that Jared died, and his brother also.

30 And it came to pass that Orihah did walk humbly before the Lord, and did remember how great things the Lord had done for his father, and also taught his people how great things the Lord had done for their fathers.

This doesn’t support the idea that they separated to form multiple kingdoms. It suggests that they stayed together to form one kingdom (which later split to become two kingdoms, often at war with each other). The assumption would have to be that if other independent kingdoms had formed, they would have interacted, either violently or peacefully, and therefore it would have been mentioned in the Book of Ether, which they are not.

Edited February 2, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Obviously, Ether survived the last battle along with Coriantumr or he could not have described and written down the history of this event. Ether was also commanded to observe the fulfillment of all the details of the prophecy. Where is the record of who inherited Coriantumr's Land of inheritence? This also had to occur after the last battle and therefore Ether, a Jaredite, survived the battle. If this is true, we must interpret "utter destruction" as referring to his kingdom as a whole and not to individuals within the kingdom. It also excludes other kingdoms or peoples who may have descended from the families of the friends that accompanied Jared and his brother.

Keep in mind it only requires one exception to a theory before the theory must be abandoned or modified.

In addition, the archeological record contains evidence of a continuous occupation at some level of the Americas ever since the ice age.

Larry P

Do you think that such survivors, assuming they existed, might have intermingled with the Book of Mormon people, without any mention of it having been made in the Book of Mormon? Do you think that would be a reasonable assumption?

[Freedom]

Do you think that such survivors, assuming they existed, might have intermingled with the Book of Mormon people, without any mention of it having been made in the Book of Mormon? Do you think that would be a reasonable assumption?

The question you can answer is why would the book of mormon mention it? It is not a historical text, it is a religious text. It would not mention the mundane. If it is in the historical record, and if the plates were limited in space, Mormon would not have been compelled to mention something so irrelevant to the gospel message. I read in the local paper about people from all over the world and it never mentions their place of origin, only their name. I can tell from their names where they are from so the news article would not need to provide any further clarification. If I see the name Harmjit Sidu, I know right away that this person is from India or Pakistan, and so do all the other readers. If it had the name Kazimuro Murukari I would know they are from Japan. You consistently show a double standard in your interpretation. You pick some passages as literal and others as figurative to suite your fancy, you pick some statements by church leaders as authoritative and others as expendable depending on your argument. You have a very convenient methodology.

[ERayR]

Do you think that such survivors, assuming they existed, might have intermingled with the Book of Mormon people, without any mention of it having been made in the Book of Mormon? Do you think that would be a reasonable assumption?

Yes a possibiity, maybe even a probability. The and others.

[Rob Osborn]

The biggest question I have about the Jaredites living after the battles is this- As far as I can tell, the last Jaredite battles were taking place around 600-500BC. King Limhi's lost expedition found the land of the Jaredites around 200BC. At the time they found it it was in complete ruins and appears from the text to have no people living on the land. It speaks several times about this civilization in the past tense as being one that was destroyed. No mention is ever made of them finding any people in that land- the land northward. Now of importance is this- If the Jaredites were not destroyed completely and there were indeed souls that escaped, it would have been of considerable size, probably not less than a 100 at minimum. In the space of 300-400 years, they would have repopulated the land and would have had large cities again all throughout the land. But why is there never any mention of these? Finding a civilization of substancial size would have found its way into the BoM pages assuredly. When they found the people of Mulek/Zarahemla it was mentioned in quite some detail. So if they found Zarahemla and mentioned it, then how much more they would have mentioned a much bigger civilization in the land northward!

But, as one can clearly read, the only mention of the fate of the Jaredite nation is one of utter destruction including the people themselves!

[cdowis]

deleted

Edited February 4, 2012 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

The biggest question I have about the Jaredites living after the battles is this- As far as I can tell, the last Jaredite battles were taking place around 600-500BC.

I suspect it was much later.

[Tarski]

Were the Democrats and Republicans to take up arms and fight a war of extinction there would be vast number who would follow but as for me and my house we would hunker down and wait out the destruction and carnage. I am also certain that there would be a great host accross this land that would be doing exactly the same.

Wow! What kind of thought is that??

So much is revealed about your psychology here.

I wonder if you might just consider the idea that the vast majority of americans of both the major parties are patriotic people following their conscience.

I always said that the BoM Mormon is a simplsitic good guy bad guy story. I shouldn't be surprised that this kind of thinking bleeds into real life attitudes.

[The Nehor]

I always said that the BoM Mormon is a simplsitic good guy bad guy story. I shouldn't be surprised that this kind of thinking bleeds into real life attitudes.

Except that the story in question doesn't fit your mold. The war is between horrible guy and slightly worse guy. Just like a Republican vs. Democrat war of extinction would be.

[ERayR]

Wow! What kind of thought is that??

So much is revealed about your psychology here.

I wonder if you might just consider the idea that the vast majority of americans of both the major parties are patriotic people following their conscience.

I always said that the BoM Mormon is a simplsitic good guy bad guy story. I shouldn't be surprised that this kind of thinking bleeds into real life attitudes.

You clearly do not understand the account in question. The account is of conflict over power, of who would be the ruler. It has nothing to do with patriotism as either side could claim to be patriots. It is a battle over whose claim of sovereignty is more legitimate.

Thus you see the democrat/republican analogy does work.

[zerinus]

I suspect it was much later.

The Book of Mormon tells us that "Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons" (Omni 1:21). It doesn't tell us when he was discovered. We can only guess about the timing, based on other information found in the Book of Mormon. As far as I know, the only other bit of information that might help us make a guess about the timing is the prophecy of Ether to Coriantumr, that "he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance;" (Ether 13:21). This implies that Coriantumr discovered the people of Zarahemla in the early stages of their arrival in the Promised Land, not a later stage. So if I have to chose between your guess and Rob Osborn's guess, I think that I would prefer his.

[The Nehor]

The Book of Mormon tells us that "Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons" (Omni 1:21). It doesn't tell us when he was discovered. We can only guess about the timing, based on other information found in the Book of Mormon. As far as I know, the only other bit of information that might help us make a guess about the timing is the prophecy of Ether to Coriantumr, that "he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance;" (Ether 13:21). This implies that Coriantumr discovered the people of Zarahemla in the early stages of their arrival in the Promised Land, not a later stage. So if I have to chose between your guess and Rob Osborn's guess, I think that I would prefer his.

I would disagree but this is speculation versus speculation so I think debate would be pointless.

[Tarski]

You clearly do not understand the account in question. The account is of conflict over power, of who would be the ruler. It has nothing to do with patriotism as either side could claim to be patriots. It is a battle over whose claim of sovereignty is more legitimate.

Thus you see the democrat/republican analogy does work.

Wait!

You think our (de facto) two party democratic system should be thought of as a battle over whose claim of sovereignty is more legitimate? One party has a legitimate right to "rule" while the other does not?

Am I also to gather that you think one side is composed of true patriots and those on the side only falsely claim to be patriots?

[The Nehor]

Wait!

You think our (de facto) two party democratic system should be thought of as a battle over whose claim of sovereignty is more legitimate? One party has a legitimate right to "rule" while the other does not?

Am I also to gather that you think one side is composed of true patriots and those on the side only falsely claim to be patriots?

I think you are straining an offhand analogy to the point where you come off looking nutty.

[zerinus]

I would disagree but this is speculation versus speculation so I think debate would be pointless.

Well you started the guessing business; and if we must needs engage in guesswork, I would rather adopt the one that is better supported by the evidence, and I think that his is.

Edited February 5, 2012 by zerinus

[The Nehor]

Well you started the guessing business; and if we must needs in guesswork, I would rather adopt the one that is better supported by the evidence, and I think that his is.

And I disagree completely.

[zerinus]

And I disagree completely.

Disagreeing is easy; persuading others to agree with your "disagreement" is less so.

Edited February 5, 2012 by zerinus

[The Nehor]

Disagreeing is easy; persuading others to agree with your "disagreement" is less so.

I agree and the difficulty is shown more clearly when I don't see either side picking up any converts in this thread. Such is life.

[Tarski]

I think you are straining an offhand analogy to the point where you come off looking nutty.

I'm the nutty one? We will have to disagree.

I think the twice vigorously defended "offhand analogy" is revealing and if anything comes off looking nutty, it is the analogy and subsequent defense.

[KevinG]

The two party money system is eeeeeeevil. As soon as the anarchists find a good leader I'm in!

(I wonder how many people fear Romney is The AntiChrist from the Christian apocalyptic pulp fiction industry?)

Edited February 5, 2012 by DaddyG

[The Nehor]

I'm the nutty one? We will have to disagree.

I think the twice vigorously defended "offhand analogy" is revealing and if anything comes off looking nutty, it is the analogy and subsequent defense.

I agree the analogy was bad but I don't think it was intended to mean what you were suggesting could be read into it.

[KevinG]

...I don't see either side picking up any converts in this thread. Such is life.

Does that mean I can't report this as a missionary moment in Priesthood meeting?

[dougtheavenger]

The idea that some Jaredites survived was theorized more than 100 years ago. See sources below. My own opinion is that the Mulekites were half Jaredite; mainly on the maternal side. I also suspect that Coreantumr, the renegade(Helaman Chapter 1) was descended from Coreantumr; the King.(Ether)

The modern Puerto Ricans are a new people who have replaced the old people who's real name we don't know. Taino and Arawak are what Europeans and Caribs called them. We don't know what they called themselves. In one sense, the preColumbian peoples of the island are long gone. Yet, according to recent genetic research, 61% of Puerto Ricans have Native American MtDNA. So, in another sense, the preColumbian people of Puerto Rico are not extinct. In fact they are the majority.

Sources:

Anthony W. Ivins, "Are the Jaredites an Extinct People?" Improvement Era, Novn ,mjember 1902, 44.

B H Roberts, New Witnesses for God 3:137-38 – cited by Matthew Roper "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2003, pp. 91-128

http://www.centrelink.org/KearnsDNA.html

Edited February 5, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[ERayR]

Wait!

You think our (de facto) two party democratic system should be thought of as a battle over whose claim of sovereignty is more legitimate? One party has a legitimate right to "rule" while the other does not?

Am I also to gather that you think one side is composed of true patriots and those on the side only falsely claim to be patriots?

You are being rather obtuse and me thinks deliberatly so. I never said anything about whose was more legitimate anly perceptions. Youre reading skills seem to be working poorly today as I specifically said it had nothing to do with patriotism. Quit trying to score points and read for comprehension.