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

[Tepui]

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.

The clues in the text are not there. Nephi mentioned traveling in the wilderness after planting their seeds, and finding only animal & mineral.

F.A.R.M.S. claims that people were everywhere when the "Lehites" arrived - "based on archaeological evidence alone." They could hardly land their ship and be alone!

"

The fact that the villages were numerous suggests a challenge for the Lehites to have landed and found an area in which they would be completely alone. The probability that they encountered other people soon after their landing is very close to one hundred percent, based on archaeological evidence alone"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=384

You're not using the scriptures. You're assuming the archaeological record is more accurate than the scriptures.

[Tepui]

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.

Sherem was a Nephite. He called Jacob his Brother as a Latter-Day Saint would-or as a sarcastic kiss on the cheek as Judas Iscariot. Sherem new about the unpardonable sin and confessed his fear that he had committed it before his death.

Thus he knew the Gospel of Jesus Christ unlike a dissenting Lamamite or dissenting Jaredite or a Mulekite who had no records brought from Jerusalem.

Jacob was the same age as Laman's, Lemuel's, Sam's, Nephi's (edit) & Zoram's children. There were more than 15 Nephites (edit) by the time Jacob was old enough to encouter Sherem. Even Ishmael's grandchildren left Jeruasalem - Ishmael's two sons and their families.

You need to use the scriptures.

Jaco 7:19- And he said: I ^afear lest I have committed the ^bunpardonablesin, for I have lied unto God; for I denied the Christ, and said that I believed the scriptures; and they truly testify of him.

Only the Nephites had the scriptures. They took the plates of brass with them. The Lamanites didn't have them, the Mulekites didn't have them.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Tepui

[Log]

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.

How amazed were they, exactly, to find an old battleground from a war their ancestors did not take part in? And, gee, what do you make of those dumb Mulekites who couldn't find their own lands - do you still not see that is a problem you have to solve before you can even think about making the lack of knowledge of the lands of the Jaredites, or the Jaredite battlegrounds, an issue?

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

Which doesn't change anything. Battlegrounds are not necessarily good lands for farming, hunting, building, or any purpose other than battle! Why should we expect to find anyone occupying an old battlefield?

Edited April 10, 2012 by Log

[Log]

Let's examine Sherem from the standpoint of the empty land hypothesis.

Not just Sherem. I want to hear the explanation for the "wars and contentions" Nephi1 records in 2 Ne 5:34 on the assumption of the "empty land hypothesis." What kind of population growth would have been required within the 40 years since the Nephite / Lamanite split that could possibly have supported wars and contentions?

Edited April 10, 2012 by Log

[Brant Gardner]

You're not using the scriptures. You're assuming the archaeological record is more accurate than the scriptures.

I am using both. I happen to believe that the Book of Mormon took place in the real world. I believe that those who wrote the books in the Book of Mormon interacted with their world and could not but help include hints about it in their writing, even when they were discussing other things.

[Kevin Christensen]

Sherem was a Nephite. He called Jacob his Brother as a Latter-Day Saint would-or as a sarcastic kiss on the cheek as Judas Iscariot. Sherem new about the unpardonable sin and confessed his fear that he had committed it before his death.

Thus he knew the Gospel of Jesus Christ unlike a dissenting Lamamite or dissenting Jaredite or a Mulekite who had no records brought from Jerusalem.

Actually Sherem's preaching fits with the ideology of the Deuteronomist Reformers from Lehi's Jerusalem, which contrasts with Jacob's First Temple Theology. (See my essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, or Brant's Second Witness commentary.

So the problem of Sherem as an outsider who "comes among" the Nephites who has had to seek an opportunity to confront Jacob ought to account for the specific approach he takes to the Law of Moses. My own theory is that he was a Mulekite trader. Others have suggested the Brass Plates might have Deuteronomist texts included. Sherem, like Jacob would be first or second generation, and therefore would be well within Oral Culture range of the Law of Moses, even without Brass Plates. The advantage of the Brass Plates is that unlike papyrus or leather or memory, there were less perishable. So there are three plausible sources for Sherem's approach to the Law of Moses: oral culture, perishable texts, or Brass Plates which need not imply direct personal access. He could have been from an outlying Nephite group, or a Mulekite or Lamanite trader. Remember that Jacob had already defined 'Lamanite' as a polity designation, rather than lineage.

It is Jacob, not Sherem, who preaches Christ, so Sherem's confession is his acquiescence to Jacob's views.

Jacob was the same age as Laman's, Lemuel's, Sam's, Nephi's (edit) & Zoram's children. There were more than 15 Nephites (edit) by the time Jacob was old enough to encouter Sherem. Even Ishmael's grandchildren left Jeruasalem - Ishmael's two sons and their families.

SNIP

Only the Nephites had the scriptures. They took the plates of brass with them. The Lamanites didn't have them, the Mulekites didn't have them.

We only know that the Lamanites and Mulekites didn't have the Brass Plates. We don't know that they had no perishable texts. We don't know that no one among Laman, Lemuel's and the Ishmaelite's or Mulek's company had no memory or scrolls to compete with Jacob's first generation views.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bikeemikey]

We only know that the Lamanites and Mulekites didn't have the Brass Plates. We don't know that they had no perishable texts. We don't know that no one among Laman, Lemuel's and the Ishmaelite's or Mulek's company had no memory or scrolls to compete with Jacob's first generation views.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

That is a very interesting point. Distinguishing between the possession of the plates and knowledge of the information contained on the plates are very different things.

[Log]

We also don't know how long Sherem was among the Nephites. It seems to have been more than a few days, however. Perhaps the Deuteronomistic tendencies could be found among the Nephites themselves.

[Tepui]

Actually Sherem's preaching fits with the ideology of the Deuteronomist Reformers from Lehi's Jerusalem, which contrasts with Jacob's First Temple Theology. (See my essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, or Brant's Second Witness commentary.

So the problem of Sherem as an outsider who "comes among" the Nephites who has had to seek an opportunity to confront Jacob ought to account for the specific approach he takes to the Law of Moses. My own theory is that he was a Mulekite trader. Others have suggested the Brass Plates might have Deuteronomist texts included. Sherem, like Jacob would be first or second generation, and therefore would be well within Oral Culture range of the Law of Moses, even without Brass Plates. The advantage of the Brass Plates is that unlike papyrus or leather or memory, there were less perishable. So there are three plausible sources for Sherem's approach to the Law of Moses: oral culture, perishable texts, or Brass Plates which need not imply direct personal access. He could have been from an outlying Nephite group, or a Mulekite or Lamanite trader. Remember that Jacob had already defined 'Lamanite' as a polity designation, rather than lineage.

It is Jacob, not Sherem, who preaches Christ, so Sherem's confession is his acquiescence to Jacob's views.

We only know that the Lamanites and Mulekites didn't have the Brass Plates. We don't know that they had no perishable texts. We don't know that no one among Laman, Lemuel's and the Ishmaelite's or Mulek's company had no memory or scrolls to compete with Jacob's first generation views.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

• The Mulekites or the people of Zarahemla were discovered generations later than Jacob. The Nephites were led by the Lord to find them-when fleeing again from the Lamanites. If you believe a Mulekite "trader" came among them during the time period of Jacob, then you're assuming there was earlier contact - commercial contact. This contradicts the text of the Book of Mormon. (But not a geography theory.)
  

When discovered it was stated of the Mulekites:

their language had become corrupted; and

they

had brought no records with

them

; and

they

denied

the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand

them

• Of Sherem it was stated:
  

And he was

a

learned

, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people;

Which people? The people of the Nephites. By a Mulekite Trader who the Nephites couldn't understand generations later?

• Sherem admitted he knew the scriptures and that he knew that they had testified of Christ, before his "apostasy." He said he had been deceived by the devil. Thus he could not have been a Mulekite-who didn't have the knowledge of their Creator.
  
• On meeting Jacob, he asked Sherem: "And I said unto him: Believest thou the scriptures? And he said, Yea." Sherem knew the scriptures before he approached Jacob.
  

• It's true the Lamanites knew portions of the Gospel - Jacob taught their men only had one wife each. But the Lamanites did not have records. They later were taught the language of the Nephites by the Amulonites, or the wicked priests of King Noah, generations later during Alma's day-the people of Zeniff-indicating the Lamanites language became corrupted-due to lack of records. And Sherem was no Lamanite: He was an adulterer. He asked for a sign from Jacob.
  

• Sherem didn't need to know the knowledge had by Deuteronomist Reformers from Lehi's Jerusalem. The text said he was taught by the devil. His knowledge came from below.
  
• And the fact that Sherem asked for a sign, indicates he was an adulterer - something which Jacob had taught against earlier. It's likely Sherem had a grudge against the Prophet because of this, like the current old-timey polygamous fundamentalist-mormon sects have had against the Latter-day prophets - and wanted to confront Jacob.
  

Sorry. Sherem was a Nephite. You need to use the scriptures, not some unproven geography theory, as your baseline standard to judge things.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Tepui

[Kevin Christensen]

• The Mulekites or the people of Zarahemla were discovered generations later than Jacob. The Nephites were led by the Lord to find them-when fleeing again from the Lamanites. If you believe a Mulekite "trader" came among them during the time period of Jacob, then you're assuming there was earlier contact - commercial contact. This contradicts the text of the Book of Mormon. (But not a geography theory.)
  

Brant Gardner's FAIR essay on "The Social History of the Early Nephites" observes that all of the social evils that Jacob preaches against presuppose trade, and those specific trading conditions turn up in the archeological record of the the specific Mesoamerican areas that fit the 1000+ passages with geographic information. Given that the text presupposes trade and the archeology demonstrates it, I think it not stretch to suppose traders. And the traders wouldn't necessarily tell everything about where they had come, given that such a "trade secret" might have commercial value that enhances the market value of their goods.

When discovered it was stated of the Mulekites:

their language had become corrupted; and

they

had brought no records with

them

; and

they

denied

the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand

them

If Sherem was a Mulekite trader, he, like Jacob would be first generation or second generation, and could easily have knowledge of Hebrew, the Deuteronomist theology, as well as local languages. Cultural descriptions from 400 years later don't necessarily fit.

• Of Sherem it was stated:
  

And he was

a

learned

, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people;

Which people? The people of the Nephites. By a Mulekite Trader who the Nephites couldn't understand generations later?

Language changes a lot more in four hundred years than it does in forty or fifty. And if you search through all of the references to language of the people, and similar phrases in the Book of Mormon, you should see that it doesn't necessarily refer to dialect, but often refers to the kinds of thoughts, ideas, topics, values, that were on people's tongues. The things that people talked about. It can and often does encompass both kinds of things, dialect and the current ideas. All of this would be essential for a successful trader.

• Sherem admitted he knew the scriptures and that he knew that they had testified of Christ, before his "apostasy." He said he had been deceived by the devil. Thus he could not have been a Mulekite-who didn't have the knowledge of their Creator.
  
• On meeting Jacob, he asked Sherem: "And I said unto him: Believest thou the scriptures? And he said, Yea." Sherem knew the scriptures before he approached Jacob.
  

The Deuteronomists knew the scriptures before they reformed them. They had their own way of reading them. Sherem reads the scriptures, the Law of Moses, their way. I find this a bullseye for the Book of Mormon.

• It's true the Lamanites knew portions of the Gospel - Jacob taught their men only had one wife each. But the Lamanites did not have records. They later were taught the language of the Nephites by the Amulonites, or the wicked priests of King Noah, generations later during Alma's day-the people of Zeniff-indicating the Lamanites language became corrupted-due to lack of records. And Sherem was no Lamanite: He was an adulterer. He asked for a sign from Jacob.
  

Again, you bring in later descriptions [400 years or so] that don't make sense to apply to the conditions existing for the first and second generations of Jacob's day.

• Sherem didn't need to know the knowledge had by Deuteronomist Reformers from Lehi's Jerusalem. The text said he was taught by the devil. His knowledge came from below.
  
• And the fact that Sherem asked for a sign, indicates he was an adulterer - something which Jacob had taught against earlier. It's likely Sherem had a grudge against the Prophet because of this, like the current old-timey polygamous fundamentalist-mormon sects have had against the Latter-day prophets - and wanted to confront Jacob.
  

Sorry. Sherem was a Nephite. You need to use the scriptures, not some unproven geography theory, as your baseline standard to judge things.

Even with Sherem as a Nephite, a possibility I have recognized, he still has access to Deuteronomistic ideas through various means. Oral transmission, or perishable texts, or something of theirs in the Brass Plates. And being taught by the devil doesn't have to mean that Sherem signed up for Devilish Doctrines 101 and took the course from him personally.

John Welch in Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon has shown the legal context of the conflict between Jacob and Sherem.

In reading the scriptures, I think it important to contextualize carefully. That can make a ten fold, or a hundred fold difference in the yield, as the parable of the Sower indicates. And it happens that unproven Geographical theories have little to do with my case. I didn't get my ideas about the Deuteronomist Reform from unproven geographic theories. I didn't get my ideas about Jacob as a representative of First Temple theology from unproven geographic theories. Indeed, I think less in terms of formally and finally proving this or that, and thereby closing all discussion and saying, "Hitherto thou shalt come and no further," (as Joseph Smith said of creeds) than in terms of assessing "cause to believe" in the best thinking I find as part of an ongoing exploration.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Tepui]

Brant Gardner's FAIR essay on "The Social History of the Early Nephites" observes that all of the social evils that Jacob preaches against presuppose trade, and those specific trading conditions turn up in the archeological record of the the specific Mesoamerican areas that fit the 1000+ passages with geographic information. Given that the text presupposes trade and the archeology demonstrates it, I think it not stretch to suppose traders. And the traders wouldn't necessarily tell everything about where they had come, given that such a "trade secret" might have commercial value that enhances the market value of their goods.

Pure speculation. Not supported by the text-to presume a Mulekite came among the Nephites in Jacob's day-based on trying to support an unproven geography theory.

If Sherem was a Mulekite trader, he, like Jacob would be first generation or second generation, and could easily have knowledge of Hebrew, the Deuteronomist theology, as well as local languages. Cultural descriptions from 400 years later don't necessarily fit.

Granted. But again you're speculating. Speculating that Mulekites interacted with Nephites '400' years earlier than the text states.

Language changes a lot more in four hundred years than it does in forty or fifty. And if you search through all of the references to language of the people, and similar phrases in the Book of Mormon, you should see that it doesn't necessarily refer to dialect, but often refers to the kinds of thoughts, ideas, topics, values, that were on people's tongues. The things that people talked about. It can and often does encompass both kinds of things, dialect and the current ideas. All of this would be essential for a successful trader.

Sherem wasn't very successful, was he? He died. Why would a "trader" of goods be interested in fomenting the culture he was trying to trade with-over a religious belief? Because Jacob refused to pay his bill?

No. He wanted to argue with him about the basic tenet of the gospel-that there would be no Christ. Hardly the mindset of a trader.

The Deuteronomists knew the scriptures before they reformed them. They had their own way of reading them. Sherem reads the scriptures, the Law of Moses, their way. I find this a bullseye for the Book of Mormon.

Again, you bring in later descriptions [400 years or so] that don't make sense to apply to the conditions existing for the first and second generations of Jacob's day.

Again, you contradict the text to bring in Mulekites '400' years earlier than it states. That's not the timeline in the Book of Mormon. It was an idea introduced that there were "Others" in the text because the arch. record of Mesoamerica contradicts with the Book of Mormon-people were in Mesoamerica before 600B.C.

Even with Sherem as a Nephite, a possibility I have recognized, he still has access to Deuteronomistic ideas through various means. Oral transmission, or perishable texts, or something of theirs in the Brass Plates. And being taught by the devil doesn't have to mean that Sherem signed up for Devilish Doctrines 101 and took the course from him personally.

I'm not interested in how he was taught. I'd rather not know! He confessed he was deceived by the devil. Since Sherem was a Nephite, then he did have access to the Plates of Brass or copies thereof - and oral traditions, etc. can be ignored.

John Welch in Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon has shown the legal context of the conflict between Jacob and Sherem.

That's nice. I learned you go on the offensive. Said Jacob initially: "Do you believe in the scriptures?" "No. I'm a Mulekite," was Sherem's response.

In reading the scriptures, I think it important to contextualize carefully. That can make a ten fold, or a hundred fold difference in the yield, as the parable of the Sower indicates. And it happens that unproven Geographical theories have little to do with my case. I didn't get my ideas about the Deuteronomist Reform from unproven geographic theories. I didn't get my ideas about Jacob as a representative of First Temple theology from unproven geographic theories. Indeed, I think less in terms of formally and finally proving this or that, and thereby closing all discussion and saying, "Hitherto thou shalt come and no further," (as Joseph Smith said of creeds) than in terms of assessing "cause to believe" in the best thinking I find as part of an ongoing exploration.

In reading the scriptures, I thinks it's proper to know them and not wrestle with them. Sherem wrestled with them and taught there would be no Christ-and endeavored to prove this unproven theory to the people around him. He failed. Because he contradicted the scriptures and prophetic teachings.

All the best!

[Log]

Tepui,

Of course Kevin C. is speculating. However, he is not contradicting the scripture; if he were, and you could prove it, you could actually make a real contribution to the topic.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[Tepui]

Tepui,

Of course Kevin C. is speculating. However, he is not contradicting the scripture; if he were, and you could prove it, you could actually make a real contribution to the topic.

Yes, I haven't contributed. Did you read anything earlier, or is referencing scripture against the rules?

Cheers.

[Log]

Yes, I haven't contributed.

That's kinda what I was saying.

Now, do I believe Kevin's proposal? No. His speculation solves no problems in the text that I can see, and is unlikely according to my understanding of the circumstances. But he doesn't contradict the text.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log