Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[BCSpace]

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.

I think the Church should have kept the "principal ancestors" statement as it is one of the best descriptive words to use in the DNA debate. Principal carries the meaning "most important" which would aid any LGT hypothesis in that Nephi's family may have been technically and linguistically superior to the locals and swiftly came to lead them while mixing with them at the same time.

[Freedom]

Here's a list of the verses and the logic.

You are reading the text through 21st English glasses. Today when we say we are a descendent of Joe, we mean he is literally our great great ..... grand father. This is not the case with ancient civilizations, or even many current cultures. Descending from a particular person had much more to do with heritage and the right to rule than DNA. They had no concept or concern about actual family lines. Also, these great cities were not as great as you think. We think of cities has having 200,000 to 2,000,000 people. Babylon, arguably the largest city that ever existed in the middle east had a population of 200,000 at its peak. Most cities were more like forts than fortresses. Many of these cities could have had a population of 400 people, with most people living in the outlining districts living as farmers and fishermen. Also, having Laman as an ancesor does not prove that he is the only ancestor. He would have been, as BCSpace reminds us, a principle ancestor. That is, Laman’s position as a historical figure made what he represented more important than the quantity of his DNA. The Book of Mormon is an ancient text and is polluted with the cultural biases and styles of the day. I would never say that Queen Elizabeth is my grandmother because that is not how we associate with important figures today. Many immigrants Europeans take exception to this practice as deceptive and ignorant. They simply have a different definition of the term cousin, however. We need to stop applying modern definitions to terms from a language that no longer exists and cannot be examined.

In short, descendant does not refer to dna, nor does heritage.

There are many examples in messo america of family lines, and most of them have been established to be fabricated. Of course, the experts recognize that they are not fabricated, but rather a common cultural practice of the time to define ones allegiance and justification to live in a certain place or in a certain caste.

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.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Freedom

[cinepro]

I'm sure you are aware that this is how the Nephites were using the label for "Lamanite" -- the book of Alma was obviously written by the Nephites. This is similar to labeling all of the tribes of Amerindians as "Indians", regardless of tribe and geographic location.

It is interesting that, in the BOM text, this term was only used once by the Lamanites themselves and that was in a letter to a Nephite leader.

I've always found Jacob's cataloging of the people interesting in Jacob 1:13:

[13] Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

[14] But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

He lists seven groups of people in verse 13, which account for all the known families in the book so far, but there isn't a category for "the other people that were here when we got here".

Maybe the Book of Mormon is describing sub-cultures and intermingling and fuzzy descendancy. But, as noted in the OP, sometimes it sure seems like it isn't!

[Brant Gardner]

He lists seven groups of people in verse 13, which account for all the known families in the book so far, but there isn't a category for "the other people that were here when we got here".

Maybe the Book of Mormon is describing sub-cultures and intermingling and fuzzy descendancy. But, as noted in the OP, sometimes it sure seems like it isn't!

Some of the issue depends upon expectations. For example, in Jacob's case, there was a very important reason to define population through a relationship to Israel. The Nephites claimed Israel, and hoped for Lamanite reinclusion. In their view, adoption into the line is the same as being born in. Therefore, in a culture assuming adoption into a lineage, there is no reason to mark anyone except the inheriting lineages.

Next, we have very modern expectations of what a text ought to do. Ancient texts often don't do that. Nephi crafted a text that fit into a Old World definition of an ethnogenetic story. One of the traditional requirements of such a story was an inherited ancient enemy. Lamanites were defined into that role (and kept that role ever after in Nephite perpective--note that the pejoratives the Nephites use tend to last for a thousand years).

Finally, I would be surprised if any Nephite couldn't recite a precise geneaology, and that very few of them would trace directly to Nephi--yet they were called Nephites. There are "sons of Abraham" that are as vast as the sands on the seashore, but one of those grains would be hard-pressed to trace the link.

[Freedom]

Finally, I would be surprised if any Nephite couldn't recite a precise geneaology, and that very few of them would trace directly to Nephi--yet they were called Nephites. There are "sons of Abraham" that are as vast as the sands on the seashore, but one of those grains would be hard-pressed to trace the link.

When the Jews were returning to Jerusalem under king Darius patronage, Levites were required to provide a family lineage to prove that they had the right to work there. That is, few people had such a record, but most everybody claimed such a heritage. The United States was created by the founding fathers, but you do not have to be a descendant of one of those men to be American. Your heritage has nothing to do with bloodlines. You go before a judge and become an American, no matter your background. Once you are an american, the great stories of the revolution and the civil war become part of your history even though you may have been born and raised in China. It is a double standard not to apply the same rules to the Book of Mormon.

[robuchan]

Some of the issue depends upon expectations. For example, in Jacob's case, there was a very important reason to define population through a relationship to Israel. The Nephites claimed Israel, and hoped for Lamanite reinclusion. In their view, adoption into the line is the same as being born in. Therefore, in a culture assuming adoption into a lineage, there is no reason to mark anyone except the inheriting lineages.

Next, we have very modern expectations of what a text ought to do. Ancient texts often don't do that. Nephi crafted a text that fit into a Old World definition of an ethnogenetic story. One of the traditional requirements of such a story was an inherited ancient enemy. Lamanites were defined into that role (and kept that role ever after in Nephite perpective--note that the pejoratives the Nephites use tend to last for a thousand years).

Finally, I would be surprised if any Nephite couldn't recite a precise geneaology, and that very few of them would trace directly to Nephi--yet they were called Nephites. There are "sons of Abraham" that are as vast as the sands on the seashore, but one of those grains would be hard-pressed to trace the link.

Brant, you're big on a loose translation view of the BOM. It seems you're taking the opposite stance on these passages than you do other lingual issues in the BOM. Why would Joseph translate these passages with words that had specific meaning for him and his generation?

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, you're big on a loose translation view of the BOM. It seems you're taking the opposite stance on these passages than you do other lingual issues in the BOM. Why would Joseph translate these passages with words that had specific meaning for him and his generation?

No, I'm no different here than anywhere else. I not only don't think we should read the text overly-literally, but I don't think that we should read it as though modern people wrote it. I look to experience with real-world translation and documentary history (and ethnohistory) as my models.

If the Book of Mormon was written by ancient people, it should behave as an ancient document and not the way we think a modern document ought to be.

[cdowis]

I've always found Jacob's cataloging of the people interesting in Jacob 1:13:

He lists seven groups of people in verse 13, which account for all the known families in the book so far, but there isn't a category for "the other people that were here when we got here".

Re-read the verse again, with special emphasis on "they were called".......

I find it interesting that you misread this verse -- he does not specify that they were related to those individuals. It merely means that the "others" were categorized/absorbed/adopted into the major tribal groups.

There may have been thirty tribes, but he grouped them together into the major categories, or tribal groups of the Lamanites. He was also following the protocol of deliberately avoiding directly referring to "the others" on the small pates, leaving those details to the large plates.

Edited May 31, 2012 by cdowis

[cinepro]

There may have been thirty tribes, but he grouped them together into the major categories, or tribal groups of the Lamanites. He was also following the protocol of deliberately avoiding directly referring to "the others" on the small pates, leaving those details to the large plates.

At some point, the theory that they were "deliberately avoiding directly refereeing to 'the others" becomes a little absurd. Not so absurd that it can't be believed, of course, but absurd nonetheless.

Especially when the conversion of these "others" to the pre-Christianity of the Nephites would be one of the greatest missionary miracles in the history of the planet, dwarfing the efforts of the Sons of Mosiah to which many pages are devoted.

Edited May 31, 2012 by cinepro

[Log]

The Ammon of Limhi's people who was descended from Zarahemla is not the Ammon of the People of Ammon who was the son of Mosiah. Just FYI.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Log

[Brant Gardner]

Especially when the conversion of these "others" to the pre-Christianity of the Nephites would be one of the greatest missionary miracles in the history of the planet, dwarfing the efforts of the Sons of Mosiah to which many pages are devoted.

I've seen this suggestion several times and I can't quite understand it. If Lehi and family meet up with and join with "others" (and I'm not sure how it could have been avoided given what is known of populations at that time) then the real question is the merger of the peoples, not the conversion. That would have been part and parcel of accepting Nephi as a ruler (religion and politics being pretty much the same thing). There is a fair amount of ethnohistoric evidence that rulers can have a religion that becomes dominant, but not exclusive--with the old ways continuing in homes and areas outlying the center.

That all suggests that the miracle of conversion was part of the miracle of survival and the establishment of Nephi as the leader of the people. That must have been a remarkable story, and should have been told. However, there is internal evidence in what Nephi wrote that tells us that even if he wrote it, it wouldn't have been in the record we have. If he wrote it in the record that Mormon used to create his book, there is no reason to suppose that Mormon found it interesting to the story he wanted to tell, so those who had read the 116 pages wouldn't have read it either.

[robuchan]

He was also following the protocol of deliberately avoiding directly referring to "the others" on the small pates, leaving those details to the large plates.

First I heard of this. What protocol is this? Is there anything that says or implies this anywhere? Are "the others" mentioned anywhere on the large plates that we do have? I just quoted a dozen verses from the large plates with references to all manners of groups of people in the Lamanite world. All of them were traced to Lehi and none of them even hinted at any "others".

[cdowis]

First I heard of this. What protocol is this?

In 1 Nephi, Nephi's instruction on the difference between the small and large plates. This instruction is repeated by Jacob and others. If you really are interested to learn about the BOM, beyond criticism, may I suggest that you read the BOM text.

Is there anything that says or implies this anywhere? Are "the others" mentioned anywhere on the large plates that we do have? I just quoted a dozen verses from the large plates with references to all manners of groups of people in the Lamanite world. All of them were traced to Lehi and none of them even hinted at any "others".

I have already given the citation in 2 Nephi, and there are several threads and articles in FARMS on this issue. Again, may I suggest that you find out the difference between the small and large plates and look at Nephi's instruction on what should be written on the two different sets of plates.

Edited June 1, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

At some point, the theory that they were "deliberately avoiding directly refereeing to 'the others" becomes a little absurd. Not so absurd that it can't be believed, of course, but absurd nonetheless.

Especially when the conversion of these "others" to the pre-Christianity of the Nephites would be one of the greatest missionary miracles in the history of the planet, dwarfing the efforts of the Sons of Mosiah to which many pages are devoted.

Interesting. This falls under the technique, "If I were God, this is what I would have done. This is what I would have told the prophets." This places one in a consulting role to God and his prophets.

I find your comment dismaying, but not surprising.

Edited June 1, 2012 by cdowis

[robuchan]

No reason to get snarky. If you've read this thread, you know I know a little bit about the Book of Mormon.

To the point, we have a large sample of the large plates with us and it doesn't mention them.

Also, Joseph obviously didn't believe this others theory and he would have known the content of the Nephi portion of the large plates.

[cdowis]

No reason to get snarky. If you've read this thread, you know I know a little bit about the Book of Mormon.

I suggest that you take a class. This is not the venue to teach you.

To the point, we have a large sample of the large plates with us and it doesn't mention them.

Take the class.

Also, Joseph obviously didn't believe this others theory and he would have known the content of the Nephi portion of the large plates.

What is obvious to you is not obvious to me.

FWIW, I have devoted my entire adult life reading and studying the BOM. I really do know what I am talking about. I just don't want to spend my time teaching someone unwilling to make an effort outside "a little bit".

You know just enough to make you think you know something.

Edited June 1, 2012 by cdowis

[robuchan]

I'm going to declare myself the champion of this thread after this post and Brant Gardner devolving into how we can't take anything we read in the BOM literally.

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation for the verses I quote midway through this thread.

Edited June 1, 2012 by robuchan

[cdowis]

Take the class.

[Brant Gardner]

Also, Joseph obviously didn't believe this others theory and he would have known the content of the Nephi portion of the large plates.

I see no reason why they would have been mentioned in the 116 manuscript pages. While I do believe that it would have been in the large plates, we have never had those, only excerpts from them as Mormon selected information to quote and history that supported his thesis. Mormon is writing 1000 years later and that was such old "news" at the time that it wouldn't have been all that interesting to him.

[Brant Gardner]

I'm going to declare myself the champion of this thread after this post and Brant Gardner devolving into how we can't take anything we read in the BOM literally.

That seems a fairly self-serving and inaccurate representation of what I have said. Not assuming a literal translation does not divorce us from the requirement to make sense of the text. However, it is a sense that must come from the text rather than be imposed upon it based solely upon our assumption of what it must mean. For example, the "voice of the people" is often held to be a democratic principle and similar to voting. A close reading of the text does support a voice of the people, but it operated very differently from a vote, and certainly differently from a democracy or any system of elected officials.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If the Book of Mormon was written by ancient people, it should behave as an ancient document and not the way we think a modern document ought to be.

Precisely.

The Book of Mormon presents us with very real, sometimes rather thorny problems, but these are not fundamentally different to the problems inherent in ancient texts generally. I'm a professional historian whose PhD research relied primarily on 'contact literature,' and I have spent years therefore working with documents--none of them considered even slightly spurious--filled with instances of anachronisms, loan-shifting, and a frustrating paucity of information on indigenous others, just to name a few complications.

None of this, of course, proves that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text, but what so often are seen as its fatal flaws actually support the possibility at least as much as they are presumed to undercut it. I don't mean to sound snarky at all, but I often get the impression that those who originate these particular criticisms haven't spent very much time working with comparable accounts.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[robuchan]

That seems a fairly self-serving and inaccurate representation of what I have said. Not assuming a literal translation does not divorce us from the requirement to make sense of the text. However, it is a sense that must come from the text rather than be imposed upon it based solely upon our assumption of what it must mean. For example, the "voice of the people" is often held to be a democratic principle and similar to voting. A close reading of the text does support a voice of the people, but it operated very differently from a vote, and certainly differently from a democracy or any system of elected officials.

If you can accuse someone of imposing their ideas on a text when they read a dozen references to the Lamanites being descendants of Lehi through a number of different lingual phrases and vocabulary with nary a mention of "others", then I'm not sure what value the text is at all. It sounds like you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

[Freedom]

If you can accuse someone of imposing their ideas on a text when they read a dozen references to the Lamanites being descendants of Lehi through a number of different lingual phrases and vocabulary with nary a mention of "others", then I'm not sure what value the text is at all. It sounds like you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

It is a text that is, ultimately, a literary work. It is carefully crafted to present a specific point of view. One literary theme is that there are two groups in opposition to each other, typifying good and evil. One is the Lamanites and the other is the Nephites. Every story in the book focuses on these two groups in an effort to drive home the idea that the Nephites hold the birthright. You need to understand the purpose of the book before you try to determine its value. Every effort is made to cover these two groups to teach gospel themes and to justify kingship, among other concepts. Despite this very focused agenda, there are clear references that establish other groups being present. It is like you telling a story of a trip to Disneyland with the purpose of saying what a fiasco it was. Despite your effort, there will be references to fun, even great successes; nevertheless, these are only mentioned in passing, almost by accident, in an effort to present your agenda.

[inquiringmind]

There are clear links to messo america with the concept of cutting off arms and having a religion who's god resided beneath rather than above the earth.

Ha?

I don't recall any BOM people having a religion who's god resided beneath the earth.

Where did you get that from?

[Brant Gardner]

It sounds like you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

Strange that you would say so when you are insisting that yours is the only appropriate way to read the text, and I am saying that the contextual evidence from the text contradicts that assumption.

I don't think the text can mean whatever, because that is way too broad. Most texts have some inherent flexibility in how they are read, and the way various people have read the Bible is ample evidence. Still, using the Bible as a guide, there are some readings that are clearly modern and not ancient. Understanding ancient cultures and the way people wrote helps reduce the wide variety of possible readings into those that were likely the intended reading.

I have no problem with people reading the Book of Mormon in multiple ways. In order to be relevant to the modern world, we must do some of that. My objection is when people use a particular reading to suggest that there is something wrong with the text when it really is more a problem with the reading.