Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[Robert F. Smith]

Also, they were not jewish. None of the Nephites are jewish. They were from Joseph. This is very important and is an example of many false premises used against the Book of Mormon.

Well, strictly speaking, the Nephites are of Manasseh (Alma 10:3), but we don't actually know to which tribes Zoram and Ishmael belonged. Indeed, since the Nephites eventually find themselves in Zarahemla, they soon find themselves part of a much larger group which does include Jews (descendants of Prince Mulek, the son of King Zedekiah, and any other Jews who came with him). We know nothing about the ethnicity of any others who came with the Jewish Prince Mulek.

[Robert F. Smith]

If might make perfect sense to you that Nephi would catalog the animals they found, but fail to mention finding existing cultures of dark-skinned natives which they subsequently educated, converted and ruled. But you'll have to understand if it doesn't make perfect sense to everybody.

Also keep in mind what a big deal it is whenever anyone in the Book of Mormon finds another group of people. They're always surprised, and they always have to figure out what that group's connection to the Old World is. They never find a group of people and accept that they were part of the indigenous people that were here when they got here.

Your point is well taken, but you ought to be aware that the "cultures of dark-skinned natives" which you find so compelling were not likely any darker in complexion than the new arrivals from Manasseh and Judah. Nor for that matter than the earlier Jaredites from north Mesopotamia. We need to banish the Nordic vision of Arnold Friberg from our minds.

Also, I am not sure whether an elite ruling group would have been much concerned with educating the locals. Dominating them might be a more likely description, and typical of Mesoamerica.

[Robert F. Smith]

The conditions for the covenant blessing for possession of the land are violated from the start, allowing the covenant curse of "other nations" to operate as one generation passeth to another The way I've been reading the Book of Mormon for decades now includes mixing almost from the start (for instance, people of Nephi who would need to be educated in the Jewish thought and culture, which is mysterious if that is the only culture to which they have been exposed) People who would benefit from a discourse on adoption into the covenant, gentiles becoming nursing fathers and mothers to Israel. Mixing and adoption does not cancel out the concept of descent. Rather, it broadens it. And the Book of Mormon does include passages on peoples being "numbered" with another group, or becoming one or another group. Becoming Lamanites, for instance, or being numbered among the Nephites. Lamans descendants are also descendants of Ishmael and of Joseph through Manessah. In a real world context, the concept of "descendant" lacks exclusiveness. Family trees spread out geometrically in both directions.

Lehi's promise that his children would possess the land unmolested was conditional on their keeping the commandments (2 Nephi 1:9). The next verses say that "when . . . they shall dwindle in unbelief" (not "long afterwards," but "when"), the Lord "will bring other nations . . . and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another, there shall be bloodsheds" (2 Nephi 1:10-12).

What about the "other nations"?

Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me [Lehi], and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries. (2 Nephi 1:5)

Not only are the conditions for the covenant never fully kept (hence the continual migration from land to land, from first Inheritance, to Nephi to Zarahemla, to the Land Northward and destruction), but none of the lands were ever exclusively for Nephites. The text has room for all sorts of mixing going on. There are others around, to fight with the Mulekites, to provide Jaredite names and cultural traits, to do all sorts of mixing outside the discerning gaze of Nephite record keepers, to provide cultural rivalry for the Nephite values. All of that in the text, and a growing body of archeology knowledge outside provides essential context for the meaning of descendant.

How do you evaluate the migration from the north into central Mexico of the Nahuatl peoples in the centuries after the end of the Book of Mormon period? They dominated the entire region, and there are even remnants of them as far south as Nicaragua (Pipil). Could they be among "other nations," as part of the curse?

[Bernard Gui]

No; but it doesn't prove that it does exist either. And where the context implies that it should have been mentioned if it existed, it is a bigger stretch to assume that it existed, than to assume that it didn't.

Here's where I disagree with you. In context, it is not unreasonable to attribute the Gadiantons' ever increasing numbers even in the face of substantial defeats to recruitment from other predatory warrior clans.

Bernard

Edited June 9, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Kevin Christensen]

How do you evaluate the migration from the north into central Mexico of the Nahuatl peoples in the centuries after the end of the Book of Mormon period? They dominated the entire region, and there are even remnants of them as far south as Nicaragua (Pipil). Could they be among "other nations," as part of the curse?

I think so.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bernard Gui]

Ammon goes on a mission to the Lamanites. This seems to be a geographically bounded area. The king is a descendant of Lehi. How does this fit with LGT? If I understand correctly, the Lamanites were absorbed into a larger culture and it would be improbably that the king of a large geographical boundary would be a literal Lamanite.

Lamoni, the first Lamanite king to be converted, was only a boss of a small and relatively weak clan. Neighboring clans hustled his flocks and wupped on his homies. He was a political opportunist who immediately offered his daughter to an enemy prince in hopes of making an alliance with major players. Ammon masterfully turned the tables on him, making the alliance religious first and then political. Lamoni's father was Godfather over several clans, probably held together and governed by other family members. Ammon's phenomenal mission did not cover a huge geographical area comparable, say, with Paul's. Based on travel times, it was quite small.

The BoM indicates this was the way of the Lamanite society, and it is reasonable to extend this to include any non-Lehite warrior/predatory clans they ran into. Being absorbed into or mingling with another culture does not have to encompass continents.

Bernard

Edited June 9, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

Zerinus' "either-or" posts remind me a little of this. It is a fairly well known story.

Yes, sir. Certainly, it was I who found the body. This morning, as usual, I went to cut my daily quota of cedars, when I found the body in a grove in a hollow in the mountains. The exact location? About 150 meters off the Yamashina stage road. It's an out-of-the-way grove of bamboo and cedars.

Yes, "Rashomon," Akira Kurosawa's brilliant film about how differently people account for real events. So many points of view: Which one is "correct"?

[Robert F. Smith]

The real LGT itself is also an interesting subject of discussion. While there is no doubt (indeed inevitable) that the handful of Nephites and Lamanites (and Mulekites), during the initial stages of their occupation of the land, must necessarily have occupied a very small geographical area(s), compared to the vast areas of the two continents; that need not necessarily be true as the development of their history progresses. The Book of Mormon tells the story of several groups of Nephites (and Lamanites) breaking off, and travelling great distances towards the north country. Here is an example:

Helaman 3:

3 And it came to pass in the forty and sixth, yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land.

4 And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers.

5 Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land.

12 And it came to pass that there were many of the people of Ammon, who were Lamanites by birth, did also go forth into this land.

So how far did they go? Could it meanas far as the Great Lakes, or even further?

Why would you speculate in that fashion, when you have just finished tut-tutting others for just such lavish speculation?

We have no way of knowing. No assumptions can be made about how far they went and how large an area they occupied.

Actually we do have ways in which we can control our wildest speculations: Archeology, linguistics, and ethnology give us a number of clues. We know for example that Mesoamerican civilization extends at least as far as Phoenix, Arizona, even though the peoples adopting that culture were likely not Mesoamericans. The Hohokam (see Casa Grande, Arizona) had major irrigation agriculture and a massive population there, with Mesoamerican ball courts and other significant imported features and artifacts. So the idea of migration northward is not at all absurd, but was likely in most cases not further than central Mexico and coastal Huasteca. These are very large areas, from which someone had to report back about the "large bodies of water and many rivers."

However, your tendency to read the Book of Mormon text as though it should be interpreted in light of our modern highways and transportation system can be very misleading. A great distance in ancient times is not nearly what you assume it might be, and we have no hard evidence for migrations as far as the Great Lakes and such.

Alma 63:

5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.

6 And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took their course northward. And thus ended the thirty and seventh year.

7 And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward.

8 And it came to pass that they were never heard of more. And we suppose that they were drowned in the depths of the sea. And it came to pass that one other ship also did sail forth; and whither she did go we know not.

9 And it came to pass that in this year there were many people who went forth into the land northward. And thus ended the thirty and eighth year.

3 Nephi 7:

12 Therefore, Jacob seeing that their enemies were more numerous than they, he being the king of the band, therefore he commanded his people that they should take their flight into the northernmost part of the land, and there build up unto themselves a kingdom, until they were joined by dissenters, (for he flattered them that there would be many dissenters) and they become sufficiently strong to contend with the tribes of the people; and they did so.

13 And so speedy was their march that it could not be impeded until they had gone forth out of the reach of the people. And thus ended the thirtieth year; and thus were the affairs of the people of Nephi.

This is an excellent assemblage of citations. However, note that these migrations did not go so far away that they could not report back in some cases, i.e., trade with peoples as far away as central Mexico and Arizona is no problem and actually took place.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Hamba Tuhan]

And where the context implies that it should have been mentioned if it existed, it is a bigger stretch to assume that it existed, than to assume that it didn't.

For my PhD, I worked with over 4,000 pages of primary source material in five different languages. I wish I had a dollar for every time I wondered why absolutely no one had mentioned things I was quite certain they should have. This, I'm afraid, is the nature of working with genuine historical texts.

[Robert F. Smith]

The two non-Nephite people who get the most detailed mention, Mulek and Coriantumr, have two things in common. They are royalty and they are mentioned in prophecies in the Nephite scriptures. Given the explicit statements in the scriptures that presuppose and require the presence of others, the details in their cases makes good sense.

Roper cites many important passages, as do John Sorenson, and Brant in his commentary. I've quoted from my 1996 essay. It's way to late to keep claiming that there is nothing.

A few months back Mark Wright cited the case of some Mayan records that pointedly ignored people who were there at the same time.

Yes, the purpose of the text is so important to how it is presented.

Reminds me of John Bright's observation about similar absence of full detail, in which the

Genesis narrative is painted in blacks and whites on a simple canvas with no perspective in depth. It depicts certain individuals and their families who move through their world almost as if they were alone in it.

That is from my first textbook on ancient Israel, Bright, A History of Israel, 1st ed. (London, 1960), 67.

[Robert F. Smith]

Another thing to add to this discussion is the issue of inconsistency in the text.

For example of no "others" are ever mentioned in the BOM, and in 100 different verses, there are clues about whether "others" exist and all the clues point to no existence. But then let's say you have one data point where you have a description of a war with one million people killed and you do the math and it's impossible for there to be such an event unless "others" were involved. At what point do you say, the best interpretation is that there are no "others" and the war description is an internal inconsistency/mistake.

For those who live in the real world, it is a simple matter to judge that there is no actual problem here. As has been frequently pointed out, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," even if your and Zerinus' interpretation of the text be valid. Of course I don't agree that it is valid.

Just consider for a moment, however, what archeology tells about Mesoamerica -- the only place which corresponds to the cultural and geographical description given in the Book of Mormon: Close analysis of settlement patterns shows us that many millions of people lived in Mesoamerica, all at the same time. We also know that there were a series of demographic disasters in that region which led to the deaths of millions, whether from climatic change, or warfare, or the like, is not always clear. For an example of this problem, see my paper on cyclic fatalism among the Maya here http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/74773355-Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya . In the real world, the events of the Book of Mormon correspond very well to what we know of the only area in which it could have taken place, Mesoamerica.

[robuchan]

For my PhD, I worked with over 4,000 pages of primary source material in five different languages. I wish I had a dollar for every time I wondered why absolutely no one had mentioned things I was quite certain they should have. This, I'm afraid, is the nature of working with genuine historical texts.

Out of the 4,000 pages in five languages how many times did they mention things that you thought they should have. I'll bet it was more frequent than the times they didn't.

Edited June 9, 2012 by robuchan

[Freedom]

Well, strictly speaking, the Nephites are of Manasseh (Alma 10:3), but we don't actually know to which tribes Zoram and Ishmael belonged. Indeed, since the Nephites eventually find themselves in Zarahemla, they soon find themselves part of a much larger group which does include Jews (descendants of Prince Mulek, the son of King Zedekiah, and any other Jews who came with him). We know nothing about the ethnicity of any others who came with the Jewish Prince Mulek.

The point is that most uninformed critics assume that jew is synonymous with Israelite. When people make this claim, it demonstrates their ignorance of these people which makes their criticisms all the more suspect.

[Freedom]

For my PhD, I worked with over 4,000 pages of primary source material in five different languages. I wish I had a dollar for every time I wondered why absolutely no one had mentioned things I was quite certain they should have. This, I'm afraid, is the nature of working with genuine historical texts.

If the naysayers would read their own journals, they would be surprised by how much they leave out without even realizing it. What they think as irrelevant today, will be debated by amateurs in the centuries to come. Did not any of them take a 1st year history class in university?

[Freedom]

Out of the 4,000 pages in five languages how many times did they mention things that you thought they should have. I'll bet it was more frequent than the times they didn't.

This is a strange comment. How can you count such a thing? Any text has things that are mentioned and things that are not. Without knowing the culture, it is not possible to know what is not mentioned because, after all, they are not mentioned. I challenge you to write a 1,000 word essay on your experiences in university and we will analyse it for what should be there. Your eyes will be opened.

[Anijen]

For those who live in the real world, it is a simple matter to judge that there is no actual problem here. As has been frequently pointed out, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," even if your and Zerinus' interpretation of the text be valid. Of course I don't agree that it is valid.

Just consider for a moment, however, what archeology tells about Mesoamerica -- the only place which corresponds to the cultural and geographical description given in the Book of Mormon: Close analysis of settlement patterns shows us that many millions of people lived in Mesoamerica, all at the same time. We also know that there were a series of demographic disasters in that region which led to the deaths of millions, whether from climatic change, or warfare, or the like, is not always clear. For an example of this problem, see my paper on cyclic fatalism among the Maya here http://www.scribd.co...-Among-the-Maya . In the real world, the events of the Book of Mormon correspond very well to what we know of the only area in which it could have taken place, Mesoamerica.

Thank you. That must have taken some time. I had never read this paper before, I appreciate you posting it. I wish you would upload it to Academia.edu so those interested can follow you. Edited June 9, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[CASteinman]

What Erayr said, but also it teaches us the proper response to different kinds of war.

I am reading this whole thread and waiting until the end to comment, but I REALLY like this idea and want to someday review and study the recommendations on such things per the BOM.

[morgan.deane]

I am reading this whole thread and waiting until the end to comment, but I REALLY like this idea and want to someday review and study the recommendations on such things per the BOM.

There was a recent conference at Claremont that included a great deal about the topic. Greg Kofford should be publishing the preceeding by the end of the year. If you want to look it up, there is Joshua Madsen's non violent reading of the BoM. I wrote a defense of preemptive war using the BoM. David Pulsipher had a good one on the Ammonite Conundrum. John Scott had one on reading Gaza in the BoM. So there are some good articles already out there on the topic.

[CASteinman]

There was a recent conference at Claremont that included a great deal about the topic. Greg Kofford should be publishing the preceeding by the end of the year. If you want to look it up, there is Joshua Madsen's non violent reading of the BoM. I wrote a defense of preemptive war using the BoM. David Pulsipher had a good one on the Ammonite Conundrum. John Scott had one on reading Gaza in the BoM. So there are some good articles already out there on the topic.

Really? A defense of preemptive war from the Book of Mormon? Please provide links or information about how to access these articles you mention, unless you mean to say that they are yet to be published. I am interested.

[morgan.deane]

Really? A defense of preemptive war from the Book of Mormon? Please provide links or information about how to access these articles you mention, unless you mean to say that they are yet to be published. I am interested.

You can find the videos here: [media=]http://vimeo.com/ldswarpeace

To be honest my presentation is not very good. I have a stuttering problem and it really flared up for this conference. (I should have gone all Kings Speech and made it really memorable.) The edited versions of selected papers will be out this fall. In fact, I just got the final edit of my chapter for review.

Edit: The right page didn't seem to load but typing "lds war and peace" should get you there.

Edited June 9, 2012 by morgan.deane

[CASteinman]

Edit: The right page didn't seem to load but typing "lds war and peace" should get you there.

Thank you. I am listening now. If you have a stutter, I did not notice it.

Edited June 9, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Having read this whole thread over the course of several hours, I think it goes something like this:

1. robuchan (perhaps seeking to partially explain his lack of faith in the Book of Mormon) starts up with the challenge:

The text of the Book of Mormon does not support the idea that the Native Americans encountered other people with whom they interacted and became absorbed into. (Thus, the current Native Americans cannot be Lehites and the Book of Mormon is a fraud).

2. Defenders of the Book of Mormon point out that the conclusion that they are not Lehites and so on, is dependent not merely upon reading the text but upon the assumptions carried into and away from that reading.

3. robuchan rejects assumptions that do not support his opinion. His objections are intuitive and practical (as in "My objections make sense when you just simply read the text and do not try to extrapolate too much out of the words") but...

4. The Defenders argue that despite the practicality and logic, there is extensive and reasonable research behind alternative possible assumptions that make them credible and that despite the intuitive and practical qualities of his objections they are an affirmative "argument out of ignorance".

5. robuchan responds with rejections of evidence behind alternative possible assumptions but does not offer any evidence to contradict it. In essence "I reject your assumptions arguments".

6. Defenders say: Your invalid rejection of our assumption arguments demonstrates that your conclusion is not supported even if you refuse to admit this.

7. robuchan says : Well, I have won this argument now -- especially, I have demonstrated that there are good reasons for me -- or anyone -- not to believe.

8 Defenders say: You have not only not won, you have not really offered an argument. However, you don't have to believe if you do not want to.

Have I pretty much understood the matter? That it is a matter of argument about assumptions and that there is no agreement or even much sincere communication on the matter?

Edited June 9, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Incidentally... not that I think this matters a whole lot, but to go from 30 to 10000 people in 150 years can be accomplished with a growth rate of about 4% which is exceptional, but not unprecedented.

[Freedom]

Incidentally... not that I think this matters a whole lot, but to go from 30 to 10000 people in 150 years can be accomplished with a growth rate of about 4% which is exceptional, but not unprecedented.

The problem is that growth of 4% is only achievable if you have a population at every level of development, and a sufficient diversity and number. With 30 people in a new environment with new diseases and predators, I could see the population tripling every generation in perfect conditions. That would mean a population of 580 after 150 years. But the situation with Sherem is that they have been there perhaps 80 years. How could these two not have met? What is this tree that they were grafted into? They were not planted in an empty vineyard, but grafted into an existing vineyard of people. There is no conceivable way to argue that this person was Jacobs brother, cousin or grandchild.

[CASteinman]

The problem is that growth of 4% is only achievable if you have a population at every level of development, and a sufficient diversity and number. With 30 people in a new environment with new diseases and predators, I could see the population tripling every generation in perfect conditions. That would mean a population of 580 after 150 years. But the situation with Sherem is that they have been there perhaps 80 years. How could these two not have met? What is this tree that they were grafted into? They were not planted in an empty vineyard, but grafted into an existing vineyard of people. There is no conceivable way to argue that this person was Jacobs brother, cousin or grandchild.

1. I do not know how you can be so sure that all these requirements exist. There are several countries that seem to be experiencing growth rates like that now -- Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and they don't seem to fit your model.

2. If God were to bless them, would there be a problem with such growth being achievable? A huge amount of the growth problem is related to carrying capacity of the land. In a blank land, it might be large.

3. South America, to this day, is still an unknown place through much of its interior. I think we just discovered a new tribe with the help of satellites. But they did not have satellites in Nephi's day

4. There is no requirement in the Book of Mormon, nor in any theory that they had to have met anyone in the first 150 years. After all, it took them about 400 years to reconnect with the Mulekites -- a seemingly not too distant neighbor.

5. Its ok if they did meet people too. But we don't know and should not pretend that we do.