Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[Freedom]

Ha?

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

Where did you get that from?

Alma 18

26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

27 And he said, Yea.

28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

29 And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.

30 And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.

31 And king Lamoni said: Is it above the earth?

32 And Ammon said: Yea, and he looketh down upon all the children of men; and he knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart; for by his hand were they all created from the beginning.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 18:26–32‎)‎

It is one of the many gems hidden in this book. King Lamoni has no concept of a god that dwells above the earth. It is completely foreign to him. This is a very unique mezzo american type of deity. They live under the earth and come out during the day to look over their kingdom. The sun is the gods riding from the south (under the earth) to the north (over the earth) and back down again. In this orientation, their south is our east. There is no such religion that Joseph Smith would have known of that had this belief, and it nicely resolves the sea east and west conundrum. .

[Freedom]

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.

Well, I declare myself champion. Now what? It is not about literal or not, it is about syntax. It is about applying an ancient perspective. It is clear that you are not an expert in ancient texts and that you have not read many of them outside of, perhaps, the bible and book of Mormon. After you read a few, you will get a completely different perspective on the scriptures.

[Brant Gardner]

It is one of the many gems hidden in this book. King Lamoni has no concept of a god that dwells above the earth. It is completely foreign to him. This is a very unique mezzo american type of deity. They live under the earth and come out during the day to look over their kingdom.

I would be cautious with this interpretation. The verses have King Lamoni attempting to place the type of god he is dealing with. Mesoamerica actually had a different concept of god than we assume. There were deities, but departed souls also became a type of deity-spirit. It was probably more like a life-force, with some more defined. In the realm of deities there were many who were under the earth (and most were not good, it was a place of death and the reversal of life above the surface) and there were deities in the heavens (who were capricious and could be good or bad--even the same deity).

[robuchan]

Question: if we can't assume descendant means descendant, how can we assume baptism means baptism or atonement means atonement? Do we need to search out the meaning of these words through other ancient Mesoameric texts to understand?

[Anijen]

Brant, I believe Freedom was speaking of these verses;

29 And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.

30 And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.

31 And king Lamoni said: Is it above the earth?

Perhaps Lamoni was a follower of the Earth God N (Itzamk' Anahk). This of course does not take away their ideology of many dieties either above or below. Edited June 1, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Kevin Christensen]

it's a matter of recognizing the importance of context for interpretation. For instance, I work just across the Monogohila river from downtown Pittsburgh. On my noontime walks, I can see Three Rivers Stadium where the Pittsburgh Steelers play. I once attended a professional football game. Now, all of this is true, but there is a bit of essential context information missing. I once attended a professional football game in Liverpool, England. That context changes the meaning of the word "football." There are several other words I know that take a different meaning in an English cultural context. Chips, biscuit, lift, bonnet, boot, for instance. I know some American expressions that the English don't use and visa versa. But to extrapolate from such differences that there are no consistencies in the language. and no certainty in communication, no meaning in words. would be a misleading generalization, a misapplication of the slippery slope fallacy. All or nothing thinking. I actually had very little trouble communicating in England. But it was important to pay attention to cultural context, especially when deciding which way to look before crossing a street.

It's also essential when discussing the question of others in the Book of Mormon to recognize the nature of a lineage history (Sorenson), and the significant work that has been done towards identifying mentions of others in the tet. Roper's Nephi's Neighbor's is the most comprehensive work to date, and I cannot take seriously anyone who does not account for his work.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505

For instance:

The allegory of the olive tree, as recounted by Jacob, spells their fate out even more plainly. Branches broken off the tame tree, which represents historical Israel (Jacob 5:3), are to be grafted onto the roots of wild trees, meaning non-Israelite groups. In other words, there is to be a demographic union between two groups, with "young and tender branches" from the original tree, Israel, being grafted onto wild rootstock in various parts of the vineyard or the earth (Jacob 5:8; see also 14). Jacob 5:25 and 43 clearly identify Lehi's people as such a broken-off branch. That branch is to be planted in the choicest spot of the vineyard. In that prime location, the Lord has already cut down "that which cumbered this spot of ground" (Jacob 5:44)—clearly a reference to the destruction of the Jaredites.⁶¹ In addition, the statement that one part of the new hybrid tree "brought forth good fruit," while the other portion "brought forth wild fruit," is an obvious reference to the Nephites and Lamanites respectively (Jacob 5:45).

So the Lehite "tree" of the allegory consists of a population geographically "transplanted" from the original Israelite promised land and "grafted" onto a wild root—or joined with non-Israelite people. Note that the Lord considers the new root to be "good" despite its being wild (Jacob 5:48). This allegorical description requires that a non-Israelite root—other peoples, in terms of this discussion—already be present on the scene where the "young and tender branch," Lehi's group, would be merged with them.

Incidentally, the large volume on the Allegory of the Olive Tree includes picture of what happens when a tree is cut down. The branches are cut down, but the tree is not uprooted. There is a living plant remaining upon which branches can be grafted.

Roper also cites:

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

Roper then cites:

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, thus saith our God: I will afflict thy seed by the hand of the Gentiles; nevertheless, I will soften the hearts of the Gentiles, that they shall be like unto a father to them; wherefore, the Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel. Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among thy seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God. (2 Nephi 10:18—19)

After reading Sorenson's JBMS 1 essay on whether there were others around when the Lehite group landed, and subsequently reading with my mind open to the possibilities, I've had no trouble finding all sorts of indications that I had previously overlooked, simply because I didn't think about the possibilities. Even Roper has not caught them all. Just recently, someone pointed out the account of the Mulekites being involved in wars before they moved to Zarahelma, which means, of course, there were non-Nephite, non-Lamanite people to fight with.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pitsburgh, PA

[Anijen]

Robuchan,

President Kimball called all Indians Lamanites

The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people

~Spencer W. Kimball, Lamanite Youth Conference April 24, 1971

President Kimball followed the hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon and I see no evidence of him having an opinion of a LGT nor a heartland model. One of my favorite Prophets. Don't get me wrong I still subscribe to a Mesoamerican LGT.

[robuchan]

I once attended a professional football game. Now, all of this is true, but there is a bit of essential context information missing. I once attended a professional football game in Liverpool, England. That context changes the meaning of the word "football." There are several other words I know that take a different meaning in an English cultural context. Chips, biscuit, lift, bonnet, boot, for instance. I know some American expressions that the English don't use and visa versa. But to extrapolate from such differences that there are no consistencies in the language. and no certainty in communication, no meaning in words. would be a misleading generalization, a misapplication of the slippery slope fallacy.

Mormon didn't write the word descendant. He wrote a word in Reformed Egyptian which was later defined as descendant. If the Reformed Egyptian word for descendant is "jomomma", but "jomomma" in Reformed Egyptian has alternate definitions like football in English, it shouldn't matter. Joseph wouldn't even be aware of that. Joseph translated it into English by the power of God. Further, he translated the following words or phrases in this passage.

"their father, Lehi"

"he robbed our fathers"

"Jerusalem, calling it after the land of their fathers' nativity"

" brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem"

" actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel"

[Log]

.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

Maybe LGT is the wrong name for the theory I'm speaking of. I'm talking specifically about the theory that says the Lamanites were quickly absorbed into a larger culture, and therefore none of their Near Eastern cultural and language traits were retained, and their DNA was diluted such that it can't be identified now.

LGT is the "wrong name" for what you are talking about. LGT (Limited Geography Theory) relates only to geography. It has nothing to do with the "mixing of populations". LGT simply says that given the distances travelled by the Nephites and Lamanites as recorded in the BOM, we must assume the Nephite (and Lamanite) civilizations developed within a small geographical area, and did not cover the entire continents of North and South America as previously assumed. It makes no assumptions about the Lamanites or Nephites mixing with pre-existing non-Israelite (Jaredite or other) populations.

As far as the latter theory is concerned, I entirely agree with you that there is no support for it in the text of the Book of Mormon.

Edited June 1, 2012 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

Robuchan:

It is reformed Egyptian. An adjective not a proper noun. Much like Demotic is a style of Egyptian writing used by some ancient Israeli's.

[cinepro]

I would be cautious with this interpretation. The verses have King Lamoni attempting to place the type of god he is dealing with. Mesoamerica actually had a different concept of god than we assume. There were deities, but departed souls also became a type of deity-spirit. It was probably more like a life-force, with some more defined. In the realm of deities there were many who were under the earth (and most were not good, it was a place of death and the reversal of life above the surface) and there were deities in the heavens (who were capricious and could be good or bad--even the same deity).

[cinepro]

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.

While I'll never have PHD, I would be curious to look at "comparable accounts" for comparison. Can you recommend other ancient records that were translated into English by omniscient deities?

[ksfisher]

Just recently, someone pointed out the account of the Mulekites being involved in wars before they moved to Zarahelma, which means, of course, there were non-Nephite, non-Lamanite people to fight with.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pitsburgh, PA

Where is this found?

[mrmandias]

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.

The Book of Mormon barely mentions women, but no one concludes from that that most of the Nephites were parthenogenetic reverse Amazons. Its just that given the culture, women were invisible in a public chronicle. One might say the same about other ethnoi. If the Nephites were ethnocentric, they may just plug everything into their own ethnic stories. So everyone around them is a Lamanite and complains about the stuff that descendants of Laman would complain about if they spent all their time obsessing about the Nephites.

Think of a history text that could be written at certain points in American history, where non-English immigrants and blacks and incorporated Amerindian groups and religious minorities and basically everyone outside the mainstream narrative would be invisible.

Now, I don't think the Book of Mormon actually clearly describes a scenario like that. But I don't think you can rule it out from the text of the Book of Mormon either.

[mrmandias]

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.

This doesn't mean reasonable explanations haven't been given to you. Several have, and the fact that you have just proclaimed yourself the victor instead of engaging with them shows that you probably weren't asking in good faith to begin with.

[mrmandias]

Mormon didn't write the word descendant. He wrote a word in Reformed Egyptian which was later defined as descendant. If the Reformed Egyptian word for descendant is "jomomma", but "jomomma" in Reformed Egyptian has alternate definitions like football in English, it shouldn't matter. Joseph wouldn't even be aware of that. Joseph translated it into English by the power of God. Further, he translated the following words or phrases in this passage.

"their father, Lehi"

"he robbed our fathers"

"Jerusalem, calling it after the land of their fathers' nativity"

" brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem"

" actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel"

While I'll never have PHD, I would be curious to look at "comparable accounts" for comparison. Can you recommend other ancient records that were translated into English by omniscient deities?

This is just a particularly silly and egocentric example of the Problem of Evil, i.e., God would not let the Book of Mormon be translated in a way that would confuse me.

Our arguments here are coming down to critics assumptions that the Book of Mormon must be written in a way that corresponds with a surface reading by moderns and that God must have allowed it to be translated in a way that corresponds with a surface reading by moderns. Too bad Assumption Land is lit by snark.

Edited June 1, 2012 by mrmandias

[robuchan]

This is just a particularly silly and egocentric example of the Problem of Evil, i.e., God would not let the Book of Mormon be translated in a way that would confuse me.

Our arguments here are coming down to critics assumptions that the Book of Mormon must be written in a way that corresponds with a surface reading by moderns and that God must have allowed it to be translated in a way that corresponds with a surface reading by moderns. Too bad Assumption Land is lit by snark.

Kevin Christensen is the one making assumptions that the phrase "actual descendant" shouldn't mean actual descendant, using a lingual example that doesn't work in this case. Talk to him about assumptions. Can you explain to me why Joseph/God would use the word "actual descendant" if he didn't mean it?

[robuchan]

No one's addressed this, so I'll repeat it.

Alma 23

[8] Now, these are they who were converted unto the Lord:

[9] The people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Ishmael;

[10] And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Middoni;

[11] And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the city of Nephi;

[12] And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Shilom, and who were in the land of Shemlon, and in the city of Lemuel, and in the city of Shimnilom.

[13] And these are the names of the cities of the Lamanites which were converted unto the Lord; and these are they that laid down the weapons of their rebellion, yea, all their weapons of war; and they were all Lamanites.

[14] And the Amalekites were not converted, save only one; neither were any of the Amulonites; but they did harden their hearts, and also the hearts of the Lamanites in that part of the land wheresoever they dwelt, yea, and all their villages and all their cities.

[15] Therefore, we have named all the cities of the Lamanites in which they did repent and come to the knowledge of the truth, and were converted.

[16] And now it came to pass that the king and those who were converted were desirous that they might have a name, that thereby they might be distinguished from their brethren; therefore the king consulted with Aaron and many of their priests, concerning the name that they should take upon them, that they might be distinguished.

[17] And it came to pass that they called their names Anti-Nephi-Lehies; and they were called by this name and were no more called Lamanites.

[18] And they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them.

Alma 24

[1] And it came to pass that the Amalekites and the Amulonites and the Lamanites who were in the land of Amulon, and also in the land of Helam, and who were in the land of Jerusalem, and in fine, in all the land round about, who had not been converted and had not taken upon them the name of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, were stirred up by the Amalekites and by the Amulonites to anger against their brethren.

[2] And their hatred became exceedingly sore against them, even insomuch that they began to rebel against their king, insomuch that they would not that he should be their king; therefore, they took up arms against the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

...

[28] Now the greatest number of those of the Lamanites who slew so many of their brethren were Amalekites and Amulonites, the greatest number of whom were after the order of the Nehors.

[29] Now, among those who joined the people of the Lord, there were none who were Amalekites or Amulonites, or who were of the order of Nehor, but they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

Granted, I'm not skilled in examining ancient literature, but this is how it appears to me.

1. Lamanite cities are converting in mass: thousands of people.

2. There are groups of people called Amalekites (most likely confused with earlier group Amlicites--but let's not get hung up on this) and Amulonites that are causing grief for these converts.

3. The narrative makes a point to call the Lamanites who converted "actual descendants" of Laman and Lemuel

4. The status as "actual descendants" of Laman and Lemuel is an important point of distinction between these converted Lamanites and the Amalekites/Amulonites.

5. This part needs to be gleaned from other parts of the Book of Mormon, but it's clear that the Amalekites/Amulonites broke off of the Nephites, with an implication that they are actual descendants of Lehi through the Nephite separation.

6. The division between the converted group of Lamanites and the group led by the Amalekites/Amulonites is meant to be a holistic view of the Lamanite universe. No people descending from a different group is mentioned.

7. The only group whose bloodline is not specifically mentioned is the group of Lamanites living in cities where Amalekites/Amulonites dominated.

[cinepro]

The Book of Mormon barely mentions women, but no one concludes from that that most of the Nephites were parthenogenetic reverse Amazons.

The Book of Mormon mentions women all the time. That's why no one concludes that most of the Nephites were parthenogenetic reverse Amazons.

Compare that with Nephi's cataloging of what they found when they landed in the New World in 1 Nephi 18:

[23] And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land.

[24] And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.

[25] And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

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.

Edited June 1, 2012 by cinepro

[zerinus]

Our arguments here are coming down to critics assumptions that the Book of Mormon must be written in a way that corresponds with a surface reading by moderns and that God must have allowed it to be translated in a way that corresponds with a surface reading by moderns. Too bad Assumption Land is lit by snark.

This doesn't agree with how God has said He communicates with mankind:

2 Nephi 31:

3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

D&C 1:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

D&C 133:

57 And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant [i.e. the Book of Mormon], reasoning in plainness and simplicity—

Edited June 1, 2012 by zerinus

[Brant Gardner]

[28] Now the greatest number of those of the Lamanites who slew so many of their brethren were Amalekites and Amulonites, the greatest number of whom were after the order of the Nehors.

[29] Now, among those who joined the people of the Lord, there were none who were Amalekites or Amulonites, or who were of the order of Nehor, but they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

Granted, I'm not skilled in examining ancient literature, but this is how it appears to me.

1. Lamanite cities are converting in mass: thousands of people.

2. There are groups of people called Amalekites (most likely confused with earlier group Amlicites--but let's not get hung up on this) and Amulonites that are causing grief for these converts.

3. The narrative makes a point to call the Lamanites who converted "actual descendants" of Laman and Lemuel

4. The status as "actual descendants" of Laman and Lemuel is an important point of distinction between these converted Lamanites and the Amalekites/Amulonites.

5. This part needs to be gleaned from other parts of the Book of Mormon, but it's clear that the Amalekites/Amulonites broke off of the Nephites, with an implication that they are actual descendants of Lehi through the Nephite separation.

6. The division between the converted group of Lamanites and the group led by the Amalekites/Amulonites is meant to be a holistic view of the Lamanite universe. No people descending from a different group is mentioned.

7. The only group whose bloodline is not specifically mentioned is the group of Lamanites living in cities where Amalekites/Amulonites dominated.

The elements are certainly correct. There are Amalekites/Amlicites (two names for the same group, just spelled differently, see Skousen) and the Amulonites. They are now considered Lamanites because of their defection from the Nephites. There are other Lamanites who are other than the Amalekites/Amlicites or Amulonites. Why would the non-Nephite deserters be "actual Lamanites"? Well, it might be because of descent. That is certainly an option. Of course, since the intent of this section it to distinguish between the kind of Lamanite who was and was not converted, it could also refer to a Lamanite who had never been a Nephite.

How would we know which one. We could elect to say that "actual descendant" means traceable lineage. That is a possible reading, and certainly a literal one, and a "plain" one. The problem is, who declared them to of that lineage? Where do we have the record or the person (or persons) who recited lineage so that the Nephite annalist would know that they were "actual Lamanites?" If we assume that the Book of Mormon references real people, then there was no point at which the people called Lamanites would have demonstrated their lineage. Therefore, the most likely source of this label is from the Nephite recorder, and that person's assumption of what a person's heritage was. Considering that we are, at this time about 500 years later, it would be surprising if anyone took the time to provide the necessary genealogy to the Nephite recorder.

So, our literal reading is correct only if we posit that there was divine inspiration that made it correct on the plates and then assured that it was translated without change to the Book of Mormon. That is a faith position, but not one for which I can accumulate any actual evidence.

Given the impossibility of any recorder actually knowing the Lamanite lineages of all people who converted, it is therefore more likely that you are dealing with the literary necessity of distinguishing "old Lamanites" from "new Lamanites."

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin Christensen is the one making assumptions that the phrase "actual descendant" shouldn't mean actual descendant, using a lingual example that doesn't work in this case. Talk to him about assumptions. Can you explain to me why Joseph/God would use the word "actual descendant" if he didn't mean it?

Speaking as an authority on my own assumptions, I assume that actual descendant does not mean exclusively descended from without any mixing. The allegory of the olive tree has the branches being grafted on to something, presumably something with deep roots (i.e., a long history). 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.

from my 1995 essay in RBBM 7:2

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).

Second Nephi 5:2-5 reports that soon after the death of Lehi—the passing of a generation—Nephi's brothers plotted against his own life. Nephi and those he called "his people" fled the land. Despite the report that those who initially left "were those who believed" in God (2 Nephi 5:6), such passages as 2 Nephi 32:7 and 2 Nephi 33:1-3 suggest strongly that Nephi's people had problems of their own. For example, Jacob reports on the necessity for "diligent" labor among them on the part of the prophets (Jacob 1:7) even before Jacob 2:15 describes the beginning of extreme tendencies. Prior to the departure of Nephi's people, the Lamanites had already acted in a role as "a scourge to [Nephi's people], to stir them up in remembrance of me" (2 Nephi 5:25). Although neither Nephi nor Jacob provides details, Jacob 1:10 describes Nephi as having "wielded the sword of Laban" in defense of his people. Thus we have no record of the conditions for blessing being fully kept, and significant information suggesting that the covenant curse was in effect almost from the time of the death of Lehi. That is, immediately after the death of Lehi (the passing of that generation), we see the loss of lands and scattering (2 Nephi 5:5), and smiting and bloodsheds (2 Nephi 5:25, 34, Jacob 1:10). 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.

Context, as the parable of the sower tries to educate us, can make a ten fold, or hundred fold difference in the yield we get from a word. Plant the seed on a rock, you get one yield. Plant the same word in broader context of the Book of Mormon story, and the physical settings that best fit the text, and the yield may very well differ.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[poulsenll]

Although there is ample evidence from the text that there were others in the land, archeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence shows a continual occupation of the Americas from the tip of South America to the Artic Ocean long before the arrival of the Jaredites and Nephites. When critics ignore this in order to attempt to refute the Book of Mormon, they try to convince people that the Church has supported the view that no others were in the New World before the Jaredites and that "all" the Jaredites were destroyed. Although there were many members, including general authorities who expressed such opinions, the Church has never suported the idea that scientific evidence is somehow false.

In other words, there were others here and whether or not they are mentioned in the text is immaterial and the idea that they should have been mentioned is a purely modernistic concept.

Larry P

[zerinus]

The elements are certainly correct. There are Amalekites/Amlicites (two names for the same group, just spelled differently, see Skousen) and the Amulonites. They are now considered Lamanites because of their defection from the Nephites. There are other Lamanites who are other than the Amalekites/Amlicites or Amulonites. Why would the non-Nephite deserters be "actual Lamanites"?

“Non-Nephite deserters?” I wasn’t aware that there were any “Non-Nephite deserters”.

Well, it might be because of descent. That is certainly an option. Of course, since the intent of this section it to distinguish between the kind of Lamanite who was and was not converted, it could also refer to a Lamanite who had never been a Nephite.

Except that it makes no mention of any.

How would we know which one. We could elect to say that "actual descendant" means traceable lineage. That is a possible reading, and certainly a literal one, and a "plain" one. The problem is, who declared them to of that lineage? Where do we have the record or the person (or persons) who recited lineage so that the Nephite annalist would know that they were "actual Lamanites?" If we assume that the Book of Mormon references real people, then there was no point at which the people called Lamanites would have demonstrated their lineage.

Since the entire book is of miraculous origin, we basically have two options: either the book is what it claims to be, and therefore refers to real people; or else it is a fiction and a fraud. If it is the latter, then we have nothing further to talk about. Assuming, however, that it is the former; then I would say that we basically have no option but to take the words of the book at face value, and when it says that a group of people were pure descendents of Laman and Lemuel, that he has a way of determining that which can be trusted. We either trust the Book of Mormon wholly, or we don’t trust it at all. If it was a known history book for which we had the original documents, then we could go back and check. But since we don’t; and furthermore it claims a miraculous origin; the only option we have is to either accept it as it is, or reject it as it is. There is no half way in between.

Therefore, the most likely source of this label is from the Nephite recorder, and that person's assumption of what a person's heritage was. Considering that we are, at this time about 500 years later, it would be surprising if anyone took the time to provide the necessary genealogy to the Nephite recorder.

Unjustified assumptions. We either take the words of the presumed historian on trust, that he knows what he is talking about; or else we reject the entire thing as fiction or fraud. I don’t see a middle ground.

So, our literal reading is correct only if we posit that there was divine inspiration that made it correct on the plates . . .

Not necessarily. All we need to assume is that the narrator (presumably Mormon) knew what he was talking about. He had the necessary information or documentation (what they were is irrelevant, because we have no way of knowing anyway) to be able to correctly come to that conclusion.

. . . and then assured that it was translated without change to the Book of Mormon. That is a faith position, but not one for which I can accumulate any actual evidence.

The entire Book of Mormon requires a faith position. Rejecting the faith position would necessitates rejecting the Book of Mormon.

Given the impossibility of any recorder actually knowing the Lamanite lineages of all people who converted, . . .

That is an utterly unjustified assumption. We simply do not know what kind of documents and information the narrator had access to. In the absence of the necessary information, we have no choice but to assume that he knew what he was talking about, and that he was making correct use of the documentary evidence at his disposal.

. . . it is therefore more likely that you are dealing with the literary necessity of distinguishing "old Lamanites" from "new Lamanites."

That is a presumption without justification.

Edited June 1, 2012 by zerinus