Book Of Mormon Population Numbers

[robuchan]

Robuchan:

That's why we're building almost two new Ward buildings every day, were losing members like dropping flies.

From last year's membership stats, ward units were up 0.83% while total members were up 2.2%. So you could probably derive that "lost members" were pretty significant.

[ERMD]

Marlin K Jensen. "Largest apostasy since Kirtland"

Not quite what he said. No reference to "droves", and the situation is specifically linked to "these issues" (historic)--not a general apostasy in "droves."

"The fifteen men [First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve] really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having right now; largely over these issues."

[altersteve]

But they didn't follow Hebrew culture. Isn't the story line that they were quickly absorbed into a larger culture, and that's why we've never found any Hebrew culture remnants in Mesoamerica?

The Nephites followed the law of Moses.

[robuchan]

According to Brigham Young (speaking of Joseph Smith's being a "pure descendant of Ephraim"), Mormon would be a direct descendant, father to son to son to son ... , of Lehi.

Lehi

CFR. Not CFR in the sense that I challenge you to a duel and you or I must die today to preserve the honor of this message board. But CFR in the sense that I'm curious about the quote and would like to know more.

[LeSellers]

I'm curious about the quote and would like to know more.

It is the house of Israel we are after, and we care not whether they come from the east, the west, the north, or the south; from China, Russia, England, California, North or South America, or some other locality. … The Book of Mormon came to Ephraim, for Joseph Smith was a pure Ephraimite, and the Book of Mormon was revealed to him.

Journal of Discourses 2:268–69.)

You have heard Joseph say that the people did not know him; he had his eyes on … blood-relations. … His descent from Joseph that was sold into Egypt was direct, and the blood was pure in him. … He had the sole right and lawful power, as he was the legal heir to the blood that has been on the earth and has come down through a pure lineage. The union of various ancestors kept that blood pure. There is a great deal the people do not understand, and many of the Latter-day Saints have to learn all about it. ... It was decreed in the counsels of eternity, long before the foundations of the earth were laid, that he, Joseph Smith, should be the man, in the last dispensation of this world, to bring forth the word of God to the people, and receive the fulness of the keys and power of the Priesthood of the Son of God. The Lord had his eyes upon their progenitors clear back to Abraham, and from Abraham to the flood, from the flood to Enoch, and from Enoch to Adam. He has watched that family and that blood as it has circulated from its fountain to the birth of that man. He was foreordained in eternity to preside over this last dispensation.

I found it with Google using this search string: "Brigham Young" "pure Ephraimite" "Joseph Smith".

Enjoy,

Lehi

Edited February 17, 2012 by LeSellers

[robuchan]

The Nephites followed the law of Moses.

Sometimes I get lost in the logic. If Nephites still retained their Hebrew culture, what's the point of the apologetic defense that they were quickly absorbed into a larger population? And does the logic go that they retained their culture for 1,000 years while living as a subset of a larger culture, or was it that their culture was adopted by the larger population because of their advanced nature?

Or does this culture aborbing logic just apply to the Lamanites?

[robuchan]

I found it with Google using this search string: "Brigham Young" "pure Ephraimite" "Joseph Smith".

Enjoy,

Lehi

I found a couple references to the quote, but not an explanation that it mean the son of a son of a son.

[cdowis]

Starting with the genetic evidence, one would expect to find mtDNA in the pre-Columbian genome that could not be mapped back to the Siberian-Beringian founding lineages that migrated to the New World between approximately 30,000 and 12,000 - 15,000 years ago.

In other words, one would want to see genetic information that refuted the conclusions of the papers cited below.

Below are a few more easily accessed papers that support the "no trans-oceanic migration" conclusion.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000829

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001764

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025160653.htm

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193

In terms of archeological evidence dating from the Book of Mormon period, one could include:

• Evidence for smelting of iron ore for steel production and or evidence of the existence of steel
  
• Evidence of the presence of flax or the extraction of flax fibers for making of linen;
  
• Bones of horses, cattle, goats, or swine;
  
• Depictions or mention of horses, cattle, goats, or swine in art or surviving codices;
  
• Depictions of honeybees;
  
• Evidence for silkworm culture or production of silk;
  
• Any evidence whatsoever of reformed Egyptian;
  
• Evidence for chariots, either in art or as artifacts;
  
• Demonstration that eight unpowered wooden semisubmersibles (essentially large hunks of driftwood) could leave from the Middle East and make a transoceanic voyage, all ending up in the New World at essentially the same place and the same time;
  
• Any evidence that this maritime "technology" ever reached the New World, in terms of depictions in art or artifacts.
  

I am not your mother. There has been plenty written on each of these issue, so do your own homework.

for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingless_bee

[Calm]

Interesting post, thanks.

CFR on point 3.[Nephi mentioned they came across domesticated goats and the ox when they landed.]

1Ne 18:25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were ^abeasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ^bore, both of ^cgold, and of silver, and of copper.

It states goats and wild goats, so the assumption is the first means domesticated goats, oxen are usually defined as castrated males....castration implies domestication.

[LeSellers]

I found a couple references to the quote, but not an explanation that it mean the son of a son of a son.

Sorry, I can't help you with anything more than what i provided above. But, I do recall that it was in regards to patrilineal descent from someone I trusted to know.

Lehi

[robuchan]

Sorry, I can't help you with anything more than what i provided above. But, I do recall that it was in regards to patrilineal descent from someone I trusted to know.

Lehi

I was curious because it seems kind of impossible to expect any lineage like that son to son to son to go on for too long without being broken. I'd never heard it before. I'm curious why someone would assume Brigham Young meant that about Joseph to Ephraim or Mormon meant that about himself to Lehi, because of the implausibility.

[LeSellers]

I was curious because it seems kind of impossible to expect any lineage like that son to son to son to go on for too long without being broken. I'd never heard it before. I'm curious why someone would assume Brigham Young meant that about Joseph to Ephraim or Mormon meant that about himself to Lehi, because of the implausibility.

As I said, that was what I heard/read from someone I trust. It makes sense to me, and it must be more than just possible since every man out there is descended from a man some forty or ninety or six hundred generations back. It is true that there are women in my genealogy, but every son has a father who also had a father, who, oddly enough, had a father. So, if we take the case of Mormon, his patrilineal father could just as easily have been Lehi (and Nephi) as not. (Let's not confuse this with Mormon's being the first son of the first son, of the first son. It's not a claim Mormon made, and that would make the whole issue vastly more complex. We know, for instance, that Joseph Smith, Jun., was not the first son of the first son, etc., but that does not make him any less a "pure Ephraimite".)

Lehi

[Mariner]

I am not your mother. There has been plenty written on each of these issue, so do your own homework.

for example, http://en.wikipedia....i/Stingless_bee

cdowis,

There is no indication that these stingless bees came from the Old World as described in the Book of Ether, but fair is fair. My bad.

OK. One down - nine to go on the archeology.

No joy on the genetics.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mariner

[cdowis]

cdowis,

There is no indication that these stingless bees came from the Old World as described in the Book of Ether, but fair is fair. My bad.

Please do your research when posting here, instead of some decade old antimormon garbage..

There are several threads and articles on the DNA issue where this has been extensively discussed. The informed antis have dropped that argument and have found "no joy" with that one.. It has played itself out. That horse went nowhere. That dog don't hunt.

Actually all of the stuff on your list.... "wow, you have proven the BOM false. We have NEVER thought about those questions."

Edited February 17, 2012 by cdowis

[altersteve]

cdowis,

There is no indication that these stingless bees came from the Old World as described in the Book of Ether, but fair is fair. My bad.

OK. One down - nine to go on the archeology.

No joy on the genetics.

The Book of Ether never says that the Jaredites brought bees into the New World.

[robuchan]

As I said, that was what I heard/read from someone I trust. It makes sense to me, and it must be more than just possible since every man out there is descended from a man some forty or ninety or six hundred generations back. It is true that there are women in my genealogy, but every son has a father who also had a father, who, oddly enough, had a father. So, if we take the case of Mormon, his patrilineal father could just as easily have been Lehi (and Nephi) as not. (Let's not confuse this with Mormon's being the first son of the first son, of the first son. It's not a claim Mormon made, and that would make the whole issue vastly more complex. We know, for instance, that Joseph Smith, Jun., was not the first son of the first son, etc., but that does not make him any less a "pure Ephraimite".)

Lehi

OK, that makes sense. I was thinking of it as oldest son to oldest son, like a king passing on the throne but always eventually you get someone who is infertile or has all girls or something.

I guess looking at it from Mormon's perspective, if you look at his family tree like a 4th generation chart but exploding it out to a 30 generation chart, Lehi's name is going to be on all one billion lines (2^30 = 1.1 billion) on the 30th generation. (assuming no comingling with non-Lehites) So it's a certainty Mormon would be a "pure descendant" of Lehi's. Am I thinking about it right?

[Robert F. Smith]

Then, in chapter 5, Nephi notes he has built a temple like Solomon's. For a rag tag group of perhaps 20 adults, that would not be possible. They definitely had to encounter and lead others into building the temple.

The actual reference says (II Nephi 5:16) that they "did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things: for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine."

A variety of temples/holy sanctuaries were built by Jews both within Israel-Judah as well as outside the country, and they varied in size and cost from quite small to quite large. There is no reason why the Nephites could not have built a small temple/sanctuary following the tri-megaron template of the temple of Solomon. See

Aharoni, Yohanan, on trichambered Tell ‘Arad “Sanctuary,” in Israel Exploration Journal, 17 (1967), 233-249, plates 46-47, in English; Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society, 28 (1964), 153-175, in Hebrew.

Aharoni, Yohanan, “Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple,” Biblical Archeologist, 31 (1968), 2-32; cf. Israel Exploration Journal, 17 (1967), 233-249.

Aharoni, Yohanan, “The Solomonic Temple, the Tabernacle and the Arad Sanctuary,” in Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., ed., Orient and Occident (C. H. Gordon Festschrift) (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973), 1-8.

Albright, William F., “The High Place in Ancient Palestine,” Vetus Testamentum Supplement, 4 (1957), 242-258.

Biran, Abraham, ed., Temples and High Places in Biblical Times (Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, 1981).

May, Herbert G., “The Ark – A Miniature Temple,” AJSL, 52/4 (July 1936), 215-235.

Monson, John, "The New `Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel," BAR, 26/3 (May-Jun 2000), 20-35, 67.

Runesson, Anders, Donald D. Binder and Birger Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source Book (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Chapter 5 contains data on Jewish temples built outside Jerusalem, including those in Babylonia (Casiphia), Egypt (Elephantine & Leontopolis), Idumea (Lachish & Beesheba), Syria (Antioch), and Transjordan (‘Araq el-Emir).

And see the following video:

Edited February 20, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[LeSellers]

OK, that makes sense. I was thinking of it as oldest son to oldest son, like a king passing on the throne but always eventually you get someone who is infertile or has all girls or something.

Even in the Book of Mormon, we see that kings didn't always pass the kingdom to their oldest sons. In Ether, it seems to have been the youngest son who got the throne. This caused a lot of problems, kings living in captivity their entire reigns, but, hey, it was, apparently, the custom.

In the Bible, David's eldest (surviving) son wasn't the next king, either: it was Solomon, whose "serial number" must have been in the high double-digits.

Wicked king Noah does not seem to have been Zeniff's first-born son, either, although the record is not explicit on this matter. Lamoni was not his father's first heir, although this doesn't establish any precedence, since the renamed Anti-Nephi-Lehi was made king over the people of Ammon, at least for a while.

Even today, in North Korea, the current dictator is the youngest son of Kim Il Sun: Kim Il Un. The elder Kim had many sons, but they now have a boy leading them, under the tutelage of their army and other puppet masters.

So, it is far from a given that a king is the eldest son of the late ruler: "The king is dead, the king is dead: long live the king!"

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

2. The BoM does say that the Lamanites did intermingle/intermarry

Where does it say this, and with whom does it say they intermingled?

[livy111us]

Where does it say this, and with whom does it say they intermingled?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1WkKd4iinw

--When Lehi left Jerusalem, he took only a handful of people with him, 30 people tops. But when

they landed in America, Laman and Lemuel sought to destroy Nephi, so he fled to a place they

called Nephi. So with this new division, and also procreation in mind, there would have been

about 40 adult Nephites or about 1/6 the size of an average ward. This would be a small

community where everybody knew everybody. But the story of Sherem in Jacob 7 indicates that

strangers had been incorporated into the Nephite people. At this early time in Nephite history,

when Jacob is old yet still active as a preacher, Sherem approaches Jacob and indicates that they

have never met. Sherem’s is a strange statement. Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher,

would have routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural central at least on all

the holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he

have had to seek “much opportunity” to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would

Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were

involved? This would be impossible unless the scope of Nephite influence has extended into

other native populations.

--Within a few years Nephi reports that his people “began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply

in the land” (2 Nephi 5:13). When about fifteen years had passed, he says that Jacob and Joseph

had been made priests and teachers “over the land of my people” (2 Nephi 5:26,28). After

another ten years, they “had already wars and contentions” with the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:34).

After the Nephites had existed as an entity for about forty years (see Jacob 1:1), their men began

“desiring many wives and concubines” (Jacob 1:15). How many descendants of the original party

would there have been by that time? Not enough for the men to have both wives and concubines

to go around, unless their were “other” people there to raise the percentages of men and women.

--Amulek, who shows kindness to the Nephite Alma and says, “I am a Nephite” (Alma 8:20)—a

statement that would be utterly obvious unless there were plenty of non-Nephites in the city.

Amulek had recognized Alma as a Nephite, either by speech, his appearance, or perhaps the way

he had referred to God when he opened the conversation. But to what other social or ethnic

category might Amulek have belonged? His abrupt statement makes sense only if most of the

people of the place were not Nephites and also if Amulek’s characteristics did not make it

already apparent to Alma that he was a Nephite. We also find many Jaredite names among the

Nephites, indicating that surviving peoples who avoided the Jaredites suicidal civil war were still

on the scene, incorporated into the Nephite people.

--Hints also point to other groups among the Lamanites. Some people are described

as “Lamanitish”—apparently indicating that they are only partly “Lamanite”—

suggestive of status as a foreigner of some sort. “Ishmaelitish women” are also

mentioned. We also find that the Lamanites plunder non-Nephite groups who are

not “the brethren” of the Lamanites.

--Linguistic evidence in the Book of Mormon points to the presence of other languages that

influenced the Lamanites and the people of Mulek, such that their language changed relative to

that of the Nephites much more rapidly than could be expected for a language in isolation. For

the initially Hebrew language of the Mulekites to have become unintelligible to the Nephites in a

few generations, the Mulekites probably had to be surrounded by others with a different

language.

--Nephite and Lamanite populations grew far too rapidly to explain by normal

means. Incorporation of other peoples into these groups must have occurred. The

same applies to the people of Zarahemla and the Jaredites. Assimilating or

grouping with native peoples appears to have occurred more than once. The early

outbreak of wars among these groups also indicates population growth.

--We are not left only to supposition and inference in this matter. There are statements in the

Nephite record that positively inform us that “others” were on the scene and further passages that

hint at the same thing. One of these statements occurs during the visit by Alma and his seven

companions to the Zoramites. “Now the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites” (Alma

31: . As Alma prayed about this group, he said, “O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of

them are our brethren” (Alma 31:35). We may wonder about those whom they considered not

their “brethren.” Apparently he was speaking of those who were neither Nephites, Lamanites, nor

“Mulekites”. People in all those three categories are referred to in the text by Nephites as

“brethren” (see, for example, Mosiah 1:5 and 7:2, 13 and Alma 24:7- .

-- The use of maize (“corn”) as a crop very early in Nephite history cannot be

explained by an import from the Old World. As a domestic crop requiring human

cultivation, there must have been natives present who showed the Nephites how

to raise corn.

--In reviewing a work of John Sorenson (1997), Brant A. Gardner notes additional factors

that point to the presence of others that Lehi and his group almost certainly encountered

upon coming to the Americas (Gardner, 2001; see http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/

2001GarB.html). For example, 2 Nephi 5:5,6 lists people in Lehi’s group who went with

Nephi as he split from Laman and Lemuel and their followers. Nephi lists his family,

Sam and his family, Zoram and his family, Jacob and Joseph, his sisters, “and all those

who would go with me.” He then explains that “all those who would go with me were

those who believed in the warnings and revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken

unto my words” (2 Nephi 5:6). It appears that Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael,

who had been antagonistic to Nephi, are those left behind. The group of unnamed

“others” seems by necessity to have included people other than those who came with

Nephi from Jerusalem. If there were only one or two others, we would expect Nephi to

list them. It’s hard to say how many there might have been, but perhaps members of a

local hamlet or group of hamlets may have allied with the technologically superior Old

World group, helping the latter to learn how to survive in the New World while

benefiting from their technology (particularly knowledge of metals).

--Gardner also points to economic indications that the Nephites quickly became part of an

economy that involved multiple villages of “others.” In addition to Sorenson’s above mentioned

analysis of Jacob’s encounter with Sherem, Jacob’s writings also suggest that Nephites were part

of an economic system in which abundant local gold and silver were being traded for precious

items elsewhere. Jacob 2:12,13 refers to abundant local ores that are resulting in riches for some.

For an early Nephite culture, what would an easily obtained local resource be worth? Gardner’s

analysis of this passage points to commerce with others to whom the metals were precious and

could be used for trade. Similar implications are found in Jacob’s condemnation of those who are

acquiring “costly apparel.” If the Nephites are a small isolated group, making their own clothing,

Gardner asks where “costly apparel” would come from? Members of the group could simply

copy the patterns of the best looking goods if everyone was making their own materials from the

same basic raw materials. The presence of “costly apparel” again points to active commerce with

others from other communities that comprise a large population base.

John Sorensons article “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” is a great article on the subject http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=1&num=1&id=3

Edited February 28, 2012 by livy111us

[robuchan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1WkKd4iinw

--When Lehi left Jerusalem, he took only a handful of people with him, 30 people tops. But when

they landed in America, Laman and Lemuel sought to destroy Nephi, so he fled to a place they

called Nephi. So with this new division, and also procreation in mind, there would have been

about 40 adult Nephites or about 1/6 the size of an average ward. This would be a small

community where everybody knew everybody. But the story of Sherem in Jacob 7 indicates that

strangers had been incorporated into the Nephite people. At this early time in Nephite history,

when Jacob is old yet still active as a preacher, Sherem approaches Jacob and indicates that they

have never met. Sherem’s is a strange statement. Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher,

would have routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural central at least on all

the holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he

have had to seek “much opportunity” to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would

Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were

involved? This would be impossible unless the scope of Nephite influence has extended into

other native populations.

--Within a few years Nephi reports that his people “began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply

in the land” (2 Nephi 5:13). When about fifteen years had passed, he says that Jacob and Joseph

had been made priests and teachers “over the land of my people” (2 Nephi 5:26,28). After

another ten years, they “had already wars and contentions” with the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:34).

After the Nephites had existed as an entity for about forty years (see Jacob 1:1), their men began

“desiring many wives and concubines” (Jacob 1:15). How many descendants of the original party

would there have been by that time? Not enough for the men to have both wives and concubines

to go around, unless their were “other” people there to raise the percentages of men and women.

--Amulek, who shows kindness to the Nephite Alma and says, “I am a Nephite” (Alma 8:20)—a

statement that would be utterly obvious unless there were plenty of non-Nephites in the city.

Amulek had recognized Alma as a Nephite, either by speech, his appearance, or perhaps the way

he had referred to God when he opened the conversation. But to what other social or ethnic

category might Amulek have belonged? His abrupt statement makes sense only if most of the

people of the place were not Nephites and also if Amulek’s characteristics did not make it

already apparent to Alma that he was a Nephite. We also find many Jaredite names among the

Nephites, indicating that surviving peoples who avoided the Jaredites suicidal civil war were still

on the scene, incorporated into the Nephite people.

--Hints also point to other groups among the Lamanites. Some people are described

as “Lamanitish”—apparently indicating that they are only partly “Lamanite”—

suggestive of status as a foreigner of some sort. “Ishmaelitish women” are also

mentioned. We also find that the Lamanites plunder non-Nephite groups who are

not “the brethren” of the Lamanites.

--Linguistic evidence in the Book of Mormon points to the presence of other languages that

influenced the Lamanites and the people of Mulek, such that their language changed relative to

that of the Nephites much more rapidly than could be expected for a language in isolation. For

the initially Hebrew language of the Mulekites to have become unintelligible to the Nephites in a

few generations, the Mulekites probably had to be surrounded by others with a different

language.

--Nephite and Lamanite populations grew far too rapidly to explain by normal

means. Incorporation of other peoples into these groups must have occurred. The

same applies to the people of Zarahemla and the Jaredites. Assimilating or

grouping with native peoples appears to have occurred more than once. The early

outbreak of wars among these groups also indicates population growth.

--We are not left only to supposition and inference in this matter. There are statements in the

Nephite record that positively inform us that “others” were on the scene and further passages that

hint at the same thing. One of these statements occurs during the visit by Alma and his seven

companions to the Zoramites. “Now the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites” (Alma

31: . As Alma prayed about this group, he said, “O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of

them are our brethren” (Alma 31:35). We may wonder about those whom they considered not

their “brethren.” Apparently he was speaking of those who were neither Nephites, Lamanites, nor

“Mulekites”. People in all those three categories are referred to in the text by Nephites as

“brethren” (see, for example, Mosiah 1:5 and 7:2, 13 and Alma 24:7- .

-- The use of maize (“corn”) as a crop very early in Nephite history cannot be

explained by an import from the Old World. As a domestic crop requiring human

cultivation, there must have been natives present who showed the Nephites how

to raise corn.

--In reviewing a work of John Sorenson (1997), Brant A. Gardner notes additional factors

that point to the presence of others that Lehi and his group almost certainly encountered

upon coming to the Americas (Gardner, 2001; see http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/

2001GarB.html). For example, 2 Nephi 5:5,6 lists people in Lehi’s group who went with

Nephi as he split from Laman and Lemuel and their followers. Nephi lists his family,

Sam and his family, Zoram and his family, Jacob and Joseph, his sisters, “and all those

who would go with me.” He then explains that “all those who would go with me were

those who believed in the warnings and revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken

unto my words” (2 Nephi 5:6). It appears that Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael,

who had been antagonistic to Nephi, are those left behind. The group of unnamed

“others” seems by necessity to have included people other than those who came with

Nephi from Jerusalem. If there were only one or two others, we would expect Nephi to

list them. It’s hard to say how many there might have been, but perhaps members of a

local hamlet or group of hamlets may have allied with the technologically superior Old

World group, helping the latter to learn how to survive in the New World while

benefiting from their technology (particularly knowledge of metals).

--Gardner also points to economic indications that the Nephites quickly became part of an

economy that involved multiple villages of “others.” In addition to Sorenson’s above mentioned

analysis of Jacob’s encounter with Sherem, Jacob’s writings also suggest that Nephites were part

of an economic system in which abundant local gold and silver were being traded for precious

items elsewhere. Jacob 2:12,13 refers to abundant local ores that are resulting in riches for some.

For an early Nephite culture, what would an easily obtained local resource be worth? Gardner’s

analysis of this passage points to commerce with others to whom the metals were precious and

could be used for trade. Similar implications are found in Jacob’s condemnation of those who are

acquiring “costly apparel.” If the Nephites are a small isolated group, making their own clothing,

Gardner asks where “costly apparel” would come from? Members of the group could simply

copy the patterns of the best looking goods if everyone was making their own materials from the

same basic raw materials. The presence of “costly apparel” again points to active commerce with

others from other communities that comprise a large population base.

John Sorensons article “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” is a great article on the subject http://maxwellinstit...ol=1&num=1&id=3

It seems like in every one of these cases, the most logical way to look at it is to assume the book is internally inconsistent or if you don't want to go there, just assume a more simple interpretation of words like "other", "brethren", etc.

[robuchan]

So Sherem and Jacob didn't know each other because Sherem was an Other? Why was Sherem into the Law of Moses? Were both the Christians and the apostates within the Nephite community both fighting for converts within this group of Others?