A Question On Coriantumr'S Visit To The People Of Zarahemla - Looking For An Estimated Timeline.

[Bikeemikey]

So in the Book of Omni (vs 20-21) a large stone gets brought to King Mosiah (recently moved to Zarahemla from the Land of Nephi). He translates that stone and finds a record of the Jaredites.

In the Book of Mosiah (28:13-20) there is another record of ing Mosiah translating a similar record. Note this is Mosiah the Grandson of the Mosiah referenced in Omni. Is this second account reads like they had not already known about these people? That may just be my interpretation(Mos 28:17).

My real question is, roughly what time frame was the Coriantumr living with the Mulekites?

[zerinus]

So in the Book of Omni (vs 20-21) a large stone gets brought to King Mosiah (recently moved to Zarahemla from the Land of Nephi). He translates that stone and finds a record of the Jaredites.

In the Book of Mosiah (28:13-20) there is another record of ing Mosiah translating a similar record. Note this is Mosiah the Grandson of the Mosiah referenced in Omni. Is this second account reads like they had not already known about these people? That may just be my interpretation(Mos 28:17).

My real question is, roughly what time frame was the Coriantumr living with the Mulekites?

If you have a printed copy, and look at a footnote at the bottom of the page where it is mentioned, it will tell you.

[Bikeemikey]

If you have a printed copy, and look at a footnote at the bottom of the page where it is mentioned, it will tell you.

The timeline for this is simply after 600BC as far as i can tell. The actual textual reference in the BOM has around 300BC and is referring back in time to an earlier event that is not referenced with a time as far as i could see in either the written or digital text.

[Brant Gardner]

There is no definite textual marker that can tell us when Coriantumr showed up in Zarahemla. Any date is only as good as the assumptions that went in to calculating it. With that caveat, I redid most of the dating for the Book of Mormon and took a look at Coriantumr. My assumption is that the king Zarahemla was the very man for whom the city was named, and therefore was a live with Mosiah1 arrived. That would place Coriantumr earlier than the arrival of the Nephites, but after the founding of the city (but still within the lifetime of the founder). After all of that, I guesstimate that Coriantumr was with the people of Zarahemla around 200 B.C.

As a side note, I also suspect that the people of Zarahemla had moved up the Grijalva river valley from the north, and that they were Zoque speakers. There is a discerned movement of Zoque speakers up that valley around 200 B.C.

[Bikeemikey]

There is no definite textual marker that can tell us when Coriantumr showed up in Zarahemla. Any date is only as good as the assumptions that went in to calculating it. With that caveat, I redid most of the dating for the Book of Mormon and took a look at Coriantumr. My assumption is that the king Zarahemla was the very man for whom the city was named, and therefore was a live with Mosiah1 arrived. That would place Coriantumr earlier than the arrival of the Nephites, but after the founding of the city (but still within the lifetime of the founder). After all of that, I guesstimate that Coriantumr was with the people of Zarahemla around 200 B.C.

As a side note, I also suspect that the people of Zarahemla had moved up the Grijalva river valley from the north, and that they were Zoque speakers. There is a discerned movement of Zoque speakers up that valley around 200 B.C.

So there is the possibility of Jaredite, and Nephite/Lamanite overlap in the "promised land" of up to 400 years. This does not in any way suggest that they were geographically proximate to each other, though it is interesting.

I think it creates a different sort conversation about pre-exisiting populations and intermingling of the Lamanites and Nehphites.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[zerinus]

The timeline for this is simply after 600BC as far as i can tell. The actual textual reference in the BOM has around 300BC and is referring back in time to an earlier event that is not referenced with a time as far as i could see in either the written or digital text.

It is true that there is no direct textual reference indicating the time when the Mulekites found Coriantumr; but there are indirect references. According to the Book of Ether,

Ether 13:

20 And in the second year the word of the Lord came to Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people—

21 Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr.

This suggests that Coriantumr should survive just long enough to see the new colonizing party arrive and take possession of the land. Of course we don't know how long was the time between the destruction of the Jaredites, and the discovery of Coriantumr by the Mulekites. The destruction could have taken place several years before Coriantumr had discovered the Mulekites. But the important detail here is that the survival of Coriantumr should coincide with the arrival of the new party. The only remining piece of the puzzle is, When did the Mulekites arrive in the Promised Land? According to the Book of Mormon, they departed from Jerusalem at the time of its capture by the Babylonians, which is about ten or fifteen years after the departure of Lehi. So there was roughly a ten year gap between the arrival of Lehi and the Mulekites in the Americas. Given that several years could have elapsed from the destruction of the Jaredites to the discovery of the Mulekites by Coriantumr; I would say that the destruction of the Jaredites coincided roughly with the arrival of Lehi; and the discovery of Coriantumr by the Mulekites took place a few years thereafter. One other important observation that is worth making here is that, the record mentions only the discovery of Coriantumr. No mention whatsoever is made of any other Jaredites. It makes no sense to assume any other Jaredite survivors were found when the record (a) makes no mention of any other survivors other than Coriantumr; and (b) the prophecy specifically states there there should be no other survivors except Coruantumr.

Edited April 9, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

So there is the possibility of Jaredite, and Nephite/Lamanite overlap in the "promised land" of up to 400 years. . . .

That estimation is "far out," as some might say. See above.

[Bikeemikey]

It is true that there is no direct textual reference indicating the time when the Mulekites found Coriantumr; but there are indirect references. According to the Book of Ether,

Ether 13:

20 And in the second year the word of the Lord came to Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people—

21 Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr.

This is a great reference on this topic. I am not sure that the term "receiving the land" must be read as "arriving in the land" as you have stated below. Indeed, there is a big difference between the two. Again, this is a very limited textual reference. I don't think the text will sufficiently be able to definitively answer this question.

This suggests that Coriantumr should survive just long enough to see the new colonizing party arrive and take possession of the land. Of course we don't know how long was the time between the destruction of the Jaredites, and the discovery of Coriantumr by the Mulekites. The destruction could have taken place several years before Coriantumr had discovered the Mulekites. But the important detail here is that the survival of Coriantumr should coincide with the arrival of the new party.

I think you bold portion above is one interpretation of this scripture. There is a difference between arrival and the words expressed in Ether. I am not sure if I agree with you interpretation or not. I will think on that some more.

The only remining piece of the puzzle is, When did the Mulekites arrive in the Promised Land? According to the Book of Mormon, they departed from Jerusalem at the time of its capture by the Babylonians, which is about ten or fifteen years after the departure of Lehi. So there was roughly a ten year gap between the arrival of Lehi and the Mulekites in the Americas. Given that several years could have elapsed from the destruction of the Jaredites to the discovery of the Mulekites by Coriantumr; I would say that the destruction of the Jaredites coincided roughly with the arrival of Lehi; and the discovery of Coriantumr by the Mulekites took place a few years thereafter. One other important observation that is worth making here is that, the record mentions only the discovery of Coriantumr. No mention whatsoever is made of any other Jaredites. It makes no sense to assume any other Jaredite survivors were found when the record (a) makes no mention of any other survivors other than Coriantumr; and (b) the prophecy specifically states there there should be no other survivors except Coruantumr.

I don't think I believe A) that there were no survivors from the whole civilization and B) that the civilization was still a single entity by the end of their time in the promised land. We are going to disagree on that point. The 10-15 year gap between migrations makes sense. It could have been less if they had traveled faster in the "wilderness". That said the landing site was obviously different from that of the Nephites. That may suggest a different method of transport/travel, so it could have also taken a lot longer.

As for Coriantumr wandering alone for 10-15 years. That could make sense.

Looks like we potential destruction occurring from the time they arrived until 200BC so far. Got to love the ambiguity of scripture.

[zerinus]

This is a great reference on this topic. I am not sure that the term "receiving the land" must be read as "arriving in the land" as you have stated below. Indeed, there is a big difference between the two. Again, this is a very limited textual reference. I don't think the text will sufficiently be able to definitively answer this question.

True; but there is no text that does that. In the absence of such a clear cut textual evidence, we have to make do with the closest approximation we can find; and I think that my approximation comes closest, compared to the nearest rival. The main problem I find with rival theories is that they try to make the facts fit their pet theories; instead of seeing if the facts do indeed support their pet theories.

[Brant Gardner]

I think it creates a different sort conversation about pre-exisiting populations and intermingling of the Lamanites and Nehphites.

Of course, it depends upon accepting the premise that Zarahemla is named for the living man. There is no hard evidence to that effect. However, if we expand our understanding of the text to include what is known of New World history, even by 600 B.C. there would not have been any general area that was an attractive place to live that didn't already have people there. That doesn't mean every valley, but certainly there were people within a day or two's walk almost anywhere in the New World. That also says a lot about the intermingling of populations.

[Log]

That's interesting stuff, actually. I wonder also if some of the wars Nephi records having with his brethren might not have been precipitated by the movement of peoples escaping the final throes of the death of the Jaredite nation. I mean, within the space of 40 years, what kind of population growth could possibly have supported wars between the two peoples?

Brant, do you hold to Poulsen's construction of BoM geography?

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, do you hold to Poulsen's construction of BoM geography?

Poulsen and I agree substantially. I have recently done some work with Mesoamerican direction systems that expands on what Poulsen had suggested. I believe it holds the key to understanding how directions are used in the Book of Mormon and allows us to place events in Mesoamerica without any reference to a shifted perception of north. The Mesoamerican perception of direction provides the basic information on Book of Mormon directions. That should be published before the end of the year and I am hoping to present it at the FAIR Conference in August.

I should also mention that Poulsen, Sorenson and many others have spent a lot more time with the text and real-world geography than I have. Based on correlations to known history, I believe that Sorenson's basic correlation fits the majority of the data. Poulsen has some interesting arguments locating Cumorah farther north than Sorenson. I currently have no opinion on that particular location.

[Log]

I will look forward to reading it in August, then.

[zerinus]

Of course, it depends upon accepting the premise that Zarahemla is named for the living man. There is no hard evidence to that effect. However, if we expand our understanding of the text to include what is known of New World history, even by 600 B.C. there would not have been any general area that was an attractive place to live that didn't already have people there. That doesn't mean every valley, but certainly there were people within a day or two's walk almost anywhere in the New World. That also says a lot about the intermingling of populations.

That is a very wild speculation that is contradicted by the Book of Mormon on many levels. If the Nephites had come into contact with other native inhabitants of the land, why no mention is made of them in the book, when the solitary Coriantumr is mentioned, as well as the destroyed Jaredite civilization? Why inanimate artefacts of the Jaredites are mentioned, but not one living Jaredite is mentioned (apart Coriantumr)? Why did Limhi's scouts, who were sent to discover Zarahemla, but were lost, and instead found the destroyed land of the Jaredite civilization, only found inanimate artefacts, but no living Jaredite survivors, if such existed? If in fact indigenous inhabitants were as numerous as you suggest, why are they never encountered by anyone anywhere in the Book of Mormon? If the Mulekites, the people of Zarahemla, were in fact a mixture of the people of Mulek and surviving Jaredites, as some have suggested, why were the people of Limhi (and the people of Zarahemla) unaware of the Jaredite lands until it was discovered by Linhi's scouts? Furthermore, if God had intended there to be Jaredite survivors, why all the prophecies in the Book of Mormon that they should all be destroyed? Why does Lehi prophesy that the land should be kept from the knowledge of other peoples lest they come and colonize the land, so that his descendants should have all the land to themselves? These fanciful theories do not have answers to these questions. I think those who come up with these fanciful theories need to make up their minds once for all if the Book of Mormon is historically true or fiction; because if it is true history, then those theories don't stand a chance of success.

[Log]

You mention Limhi's scouts twice. Let's see, they would have been 1 or 2 (or 3) generations removed from Zarahemla, knowing nothing of the surrounding areas. It is interesting, granting your thesis, that they somehow magically missed Zarahemla, even though they knew it existed. Does that fact not trouble you at all in your insistence that they should have known of some other land that, by all accounts, they discovered by accident?

In other words, why should we expect Limhi's scouts to know anything about anywhere other than the land of Nephi, when clearly they did not even know the way to Zarahemla?

And why should the limitations on the geographical knowledge of Limhi's scouts have any bearing on the geographical knowledge of the Nephites or the Lamanites?

And, lastly, why should Limhi's scouts finding an ancient battlefield have any bearing on whether there were other peoples elsewhere in the land?

Edited April 9, 2012 by Log

[Mark Beesley]

That is a very wild speculation that is contradicted by the Book of Mormon on many levels. If the Nephites had come into contact with other native inhabitants of the land, why no mention is made of them in the book, when the solitary Coriantumr is mentioned, as well as the destroyed Jaredite civilization? Why inanimate artefacts of the Jaredites are mentioned, but not one living Jaredite is mentioned (apart Coriantumr)? Why did Limhi's scouts, who were sent to discover Zarahemla, but were lost, and instead found the destroyed land of the Jaredite civilization, only found inanimate artefacts, but no living Jaredite survivors, if such existed? If in fact indigenous inhabitants were as numerous as you suggest, why are they never encountered by anyone anywhere in the Book of Mormon? If the Mulekites, the people of Zarahemla, were in fact a mixture of the people of Mulek and surviving Jaredites, as some have suggested, why were the people of Limhi (and the people of Zarahemla) unaware of the Jaredite lands until it was discovered by Linhi's scouts? Furthermore, if God had intended there to be Jaredite survivors, why all the prophecies in the Book of Mormon that they should all be destroyed? Why does Lehi prophesy that the land should be kept from the knowledge of other peoples lest they come and colonize the land, so that his descendants should have all the land to themselves? These fanciful theories do not have answers to these questions. I think those who come up with these fanciful theories need to make up their minds once for all if the Book of Mormon is historically true or fiction; because if it is true history, then those theories don't stand a chance of success.

Well, a couple of things.

The Book of Mormon, from 1 Nephi through Omni, was taken from the small plates of Nephi. Nephi specifically stated that those plates were intended to record the more spiritual things, while the large plates contained more of the history. And yet, even with that, we have an account in Jacob 7 of man named Sherem who came among the Nephites. He is not indentified as a Lamanite, which Jacob most assuredly would have done had he been such. So, I think it is a safe assumption that Sherem was neither Nehphite nor Lamanite, but likely from some other settlers.

As for the rest of the Book of Mormon, we don't know what the original sources were on which Mormon relied to make his abridgement. Whether those sources described intermingling of other peoples with the Nephites and/or Lamanites, we don't know. We do know that it was unnecessary for Mormon to record such histories in order fulfill his charge from the Lord.

Lehi's statement that no people would be brought to the land except they be led of the Lord does not foreclose the Lord from having inspired numerous other groups to travel to the New World.

There is so much evidence for the existence of multiple non-Nephite/Lamanite/Jaredite peoples that to suppose that they did not exist just because the Book of Mormon does not specifically identify them is rather myopic.

Finally, I have always found it useful, in reading the scriptures, to remember that the scriptures were not penned by God. They were penned by men who had weaknesses, imperfections and prejudices.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Brant Gardner]

That is a very wild speculation that is contradicted by the Book of Mormon on many levels.

To borrow the "you're no JFK" trope, I know wild speculation, and that, sir, is not wild speculation. I would call it reasoned explanation. Coriantumr showed up in the city of Zarahemla after its founding. The king Zarahemla Mosiah1 met was either that very man or someone else bearing the name. Either is possible, but there doesn't seem to be much reason to see Zarahemla as a very old city.

Of course, since I accept a location for the Book of Mormon, I am also influenced by the archaeology of that area, which would also have Zarahemla as a relatively new city.

If the Nephites had come into contact with other native inhabitants of the land, why no mention is made of them in the book

​The very idea that the text should mention every possible person in a way that satisfies us--only says something about what we want in a text. By the time Mormon is editing the plates, he has no reason to be surprised at the various peoples in the New World, and I would argue that Amulek (of the book of Omni) wouldn't either.

, when the solitary Coriantumr is mentioned, as well as the destroyed Jaredite civilization?

Clearly Coriantumr was different. He was a king and from what would have been ancestral areas to the people of Zarahemla. Of course he was interesting to them. Any people that were around them in other cities would not have been remarkable enough to mention. This is, by the way, a known process in ancient documents. It isn't special pleading, but rather pleading against known ancient practice.

Why inanimate artefacts of the Jaredites are mentioned, but not one living Jaredite is mentioned (apart Coriantumr)?

You are conflating two different stories from two different peoples in two places with very different events associated and at least 50 years apart in my calculation (hundreds of years in yours).

Why did Limhi's scouts, who were sent to discover Zarahemla, but were lost, and instead found the destroyed land of the Jaredite civilization, only found inanimate artefacts, but no living Jaredite survivors, if such existed?

Two questions. First, why did they find the destroyed Jaredites? They followed the wrong river. I think Larry Poulsen's analysis of that is spot on and a perfect explanation.

Why did they find an abandoned city and not living people. Surely you don't believe that all abandoned cities mean that there are no other people in other cities in other areas? Are you suggesting that Limni's scouting party decided to spend some time there and travel around to other locations to verify that there was no one anywhere else? I suppose it is possible, but historically doubtful.

If in fact indigenous inhabitants were as numerous as you suggest, why are they never encountered by anyone anywhere in the Book of Mormon?

Well, I believe they are all around and mentioned all the time. Most peoples in the ancient world were identified as residents of a city, and the Book of Mormon constantly does just that. Secondly, the Book of Mormon uses Lamanite as an exonym, starting at least as early as Jacob. If you aren't friendly to the Nephites, you are a Lamanite. Nothing about lineage, just opposition. Think gentile.

If the Mulekites, the people of Zarahemla, were in fact a mixture of the people of Mulek and surviving Jaredites, as some have suggested, why were the people of Limhi (and the people of Zarahemla) unaware of the Jaredite lands until it was discovered by Linhi's scouts?

The people of Zarahemla were descended from Mulek. The text never mentions Mulekites. Nevertheless, since there is no way that the people of Mulek landed at the site of Zarahemla, the people of Zarahemla traveled there.

Now, what happened with the Limnite party? They were the second (or perhaps even third) generation in the land of Nephi, having left Zarahemla. They may or may not have been predominately people Zarahemla. It is more likely that many were emmigrants from the city of Nephi with Mosiah1 (Zeniff almost surely was). That tells us that they wouldn't have had much direct knowledge of that region. Secondly, they followed the wrong river and didn't find Zarahemla--or perhaps they originally thought that they did but that it had been destroyed. They couldn't read anything they found there, so how did they know what they had found, other than an abandoned city?

[Tepui]

You mention Limhi's scouts twice. Let's see, they would have been 1 or 2 (or 3) generations removed from Zarahemla, knowing nothing of the surrounding areas. It is interesting, granting your thesis, that they somehow magically missed Zarahemla, even though they knew it existed. Does that fact not trouble you at all in your insistence that they should have known of some other land that, by all accounts, they discovered by accident?

In other words, why should we expect Limhi's scouts to know anything about anywhere other than the land of Nephi, when clearly they did not even know the way to Zarahemla?

And why should the limitations on the geographical knowledge of Limhi's scouts have any bearing on the geographical knowledge of the Nephites or the Lamanites?

And, lastly, why should Limhi's scouts finding an ancient battlefield have any bearing on whether there were other peoples elsewhere in the land?

Because Limhi's scouts found the 24-Gold Plates of Ether at around 121 B.C...long after Coriantumr was discovered around 600 B.C.

500 years wandering around in a limited 500-square mile area of Mesoamerica - and not one indigenous Maya or Olmec found these plates-nor the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites who allegedly lived among them?

Ether left his plates out in the open for 500 years in "a manner that the people of Limhi could find them." - or anyone for that matter. Ether 15:33

Contrast this with the Prophet Moroni burying his plates to hide them from the Lamanites who would destroy them. Mormon 6:6

Sorry. This indicates Book of Mormon lands were large and empty and its previous inhabitants, the Jaredites, had been destroyed - and there was no interaction between Mulekites and Jaredites, least of all Nephites.

Jacob quoting the O.T.-time frame prophet Zenos stated in Jacob 5 43-44 that the Jaredites were destroyed - as a 2nd witness to the Prophet Ether's prophecy of all but one soul being destroyed - Coriantumr (Ether being the witness but apparently dying or translated before Coriantumr).

The discovery of the Gold Plates of Ether was a 2nd witness (of and with the Plates of Brass) to the Nephites of Christ and his prophets - just as the Book of Mormon is to us with the Bible.

[Tepui]

Coriantumr showed up in the city of Zarahemla after its founding.

This, kindly, is not correct.

Omni 1:21 indicates the people of Zarahemla discovered Coriantumr

Omni 1:15 indicates the peopel of Zarahemla came out of Jerusalem. Not Zarahemla. The people of Zarahemla. It was Mulek, an ancestor of Zarahemla.

There is no indication that the city of Zarahemla nor its land was even built or discovered when the Mulekites discovered Coriantumr.

Omni 1:20 The fact that a large stone was brought to King Mosiah, after the Nephites had merged with the people of Zarahemla, indicates the people of Zarahemla couldn't read their ancestors engravings on the stone.

This is correct as the text indicates the Mulekites language had become corrupted to due a lack of records.

So no. Coriantumr did not showed up in the city of Zarahemla after its founding

Coriantumr was discovered by earlier ancestors of Zarahemla - earlier Mulekites.

[Tepui]

Now, what happened with the Limnite party? They were the second (or perhaps even third) generation in the land of Nephi, having left Zarahemla. They may or may not have been predominately people Zarahemla. It is more likely that many were emmigrants from the city of Nephi with Mosiah1 (Zeniff almost surely was). That tells us that they wouldn't have had much direct knowledge of that region. Secondly, they followed the wrong river and didn't find Zarahemla--or perhaps they originally thought that they did but that it had been destroyed. They couldn't read anything they found there, so how did they know what they had found, other than an abandoned city?

How is it that 3rd Generation Nephites growing up in the Land of Nephi - thus not knowing the location of the Land of Zarahemla - could not have found the Land of Zarahemla by following the wrong river? Both the Grijalva and the Usamincta Rivers - flow into the same river delta? You don't think they could have figured out there was another river and returned upstream and found your Mesoamerica-version of Zarahemla?

And they found an abandoned city? The Book of Mormon states the Jaredites were destroyed in the land northward - thus the land of Desolation. The Jaredites Nation - one of the greatest upon the face of the earth (ETHER 1:43) and existing for thousands of years, was composed of more than one city!

And why no excuses for the Grijalva River running north - when the lands in Mesoamerica run east-west?

According to your directions, east-west is north-south. So, then why does your River Sidon - the Grijalva - run north - in an east-west geography?

[zerinus]

You mention Limhi's scouts twice. Let's see, they would have been 1 or 2 (or 3) generations removed from Zarahemla, knowing nothing of the surrounding areas. It is interesting, granting your thesis, that they somehow magically missed Zarahemla, even though they knew it existed. Does that fact not trouble you at all in your insistence that they should have known of some other land that, by all accounts, they discovered by accident?

In other words, why should we expect Limhi's scouts to know anything about anywhere other than the land of Nephi, when clearly they did not even know the way to Zarahemla?

And why should the limitations on the geographical knowledge of Limhi's scouts have any bearing on the geographical knowledge of the Nephites or the Lamanites?

Because according to the theory presented here, the people of Limhi were in fact part Jaredites. Their fathers had originated from Zarahemla, which according to the theory presented by some here, was a mixture of Mulekites and Jaredites, in which case they would have known of their own ancestral lands. So here we have a bunch of Jaredites who are amazed to discover what was after all their own ancestral homelands.

And, lastly, why should Limhi's scouts finding an ancient battlefield have any bearing on whether there were other peoples elsewhere in the land?

Because I was replying to Brant who had said the following:

However, if we expand our understanding of the text to include what is known of New World history, even by 600 B.C. there would not have been any general area that was an attractive place to live that didn't already have people there.

[zerinus]

Well, a couple of things.

The Book of Mormon, from 1 Nephi through Omni, was taken from the small plates of Nephi. Nephi specifically stated that those plates were intended to record the more spiritual things, while the large plates contained more of the history. And yet, even with that, we have an account in Jacob 7 of man named Sherem who came among the Nephites. He is not indentified as a Lamanite, which Jacob most assuredly would have done had he been such. So, I think it is a safe assumption that Sherem was neither Nehphite nor Lamanite, but likely from some other settlers.

There is nothing "safe" about that assumption. There is no reason to assume that Sherem was anything other than a Nephite.

As for the rest of the Book of Mormon, we don't know what the original sources were on which Mormon relied to make his abridgement. Whether those sources described intermingling of other peoples with the Nephites and/or Lamanites, we don't know. We do know that it was unnecessary for Mormon to record such histories in order fulfill his charge from the Lord.

Lehi's statement that no people would be brought to the land except they be led of the Lord does not foreclose the Lord from having inspired numerous other groups to travel to the New World.

There is so much evidence for the existence of multiple non-Nephite/Lamanite/Jaredite peoples that to suppose that they did not exist just because the Book of Mormon does not specifically identify them is rather myopic.

Finally, I have always found it useful, in reading the scriptures, to remember that they scriptures were not penned by God. They were penned by men who had weaknesses, imperfections and prejudices.

In other words, you have absolutely no evidence of surviving Jaredites at all, except a bunch of wild speculations; and you want me to accept those wild speculations against a sober assessment of the Book of Mormon text which suggests the contrary. No thank you very much.

Edited April 10, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I think that Tepui has already done a good job of answering your post. Here are some additional comments from me.

​The very idea that the text should mention every possible person in a way that satisfies us--only says something about what we want in a text. By the time Mormon is editing the plates, he has no reason to be surprised at the various peoples in the New World, and I would argue that Amulek (of the book of Omni) wouldn't either.

Nobody is expecting "every possible person" to be mentioned. The trouble is that not even one person is mentioned--with the soul exception of Coriantumr, who by some chance was prophesied to be the soul survivor of the Jaredites.

Clearly Coriantumr was different. He was a king and from what would have been ancestral areas to the people of Zarahemla. Of course he was interesting to them. Any people that were around them in other cities would not have been remarkable enough to mention. This is, by the way, a known process in ancient documents. It isn't special pleading, but rather pleading against known ancient practice.

He was different in more important ways that those: He was important because he was prophesied to be the sole survivor of the Jaredites; which, lo and behold, he was!

You are conflating two different stories from two different peoples in two places with very different events associated and at least 50 years apart in my calculation (hundreds of years in yours).

I am not "conflating" anything. You said that every square mile of the land had somebody living in it (or words to that effect!). I was just wondering how they managed to travel so far into the uncharted territory, found so many left-over artefacts, but no living persons in sight?

[Brant Gardner]

You said that every square mile of the land had somebody living in it (or words to that effect!).

It certainly wasn't the effect I was going for. In good land there were people. When Limhi's party traveled up river and found the ruins, they certainly passed people the didn't mention. That wasn't interesting, unusual, or unexpected. The ruins were unexpected and artistically a different tradition. Therefore, they were interested, and much more so than in the people they passed that they didn't mention.

It is rather like Lehi and his family traveling to Bountiful. They must have traveled the Incense Trail in order to find food and water (which is why the trail was there in the first place). However, they didn't mention all of the people they certainly saw along the way. History is very clear that it wasn't abandoned at that time.

Not mentioning people doesn't mean that no one was there. To "find" the people who aren't mentioned, you have to look at clues in the text, not explicit mention.

[Brant Gardner]

There is no reason to assume that Sherem was anything other than a Nephite.

Let's examine Sherem from the standpoint of the empty land hypothesis. We have perhaps 30 people arrive with Lehi (you might argue for a different number, but there are very few named individual, and only the plural "sisters" for Nephi--not a number and we don't know if they were married to anyone from the Old World).

Then, not long after arrival, there is an acrimonious split. Make it even and put 15 in each group (somebody is too young to be married, certainly). Then, within say 50 years at the outside, we get Sherem who "comes among" the people and has to seek out Jacob.

How many people in 50 years? Say the group went from 15 to 100 (in spite of the fact that they would be marrying brothers/sisters or cousins). You have a village of 100 people, and of those Jacob is the principal religious leader. Sherem is then one of those 100, but for some reason has to come from the outside and doesn't know where to find Jacob? That simply isn't even possible unless Sherem is a Nephite from somewhere else, but there is nowhere else he could have been from. The Nephites only have one city, with Nephi(2 presumably) as king.

It seems to me that there are quite a few reasons to Sherem as a non-Nephite.