Credibility Of The "Others" Theory In The Book Of Mormon

[Darren10]

“May have been” is not the same as saying that he was, which is what some people have been arguing. But let us see what justification there is for claiming that he may have been.

But here's your primary argument (bold mine):

I don’t insist that there were no others. I insist that the text of the Book of Mormon does not support such a claim. It is quite possible that they existed. But there is no support in the text of the Book of Mormon that they existed; or if they did, that they interacted with the BoM people.

JAHS correctly pinted out that Sherem came to the nephite people. That in and of itself indicates he was a foreigner. I always thoght if this phrase meaning that the person simply made himself available in public to the people. Like in a public square. But there is no reason to discard LAHS's claim that this *may* mean that Sherem came from outside the people.

[mfbukowski]

In fact the reason why there was to be no fire is clearly stated in 1Nephi 17

2 And so great were the blessings of the Lord upon us, that while we did live upon raw cmeat in the wilderness, our women did give plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men; and they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings.

3 And thus we see that the commandments of God must be fulfilled. And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth nourish them, and strengthen them, and provide means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them; wherefore, he did provide means for us while we did sojourn in the wilderness.

It was a test so they would be dependent on the Lord and learn to rely on him.

Nothing about secrets. And Zerinus' quote is much earlier- 13 chapters earlier!

Edit:

This makes it even clearer- no time to clean up the formatting - so sorry about that

12 For the Lord had not hitherto suffered that we should make much fire, as we journeyed in the wilderness; for he said: I will make thy food become sweet, that ye acook it not;

13 And I will also be your alight in the wilderness; and I will prepare the way before you, if it so be that ye shall keep my commandments; wherefore, inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall be led towards the bpromised land; and ye shall cknow that it is by me that ye are led.

14 Yea, and the Lord said also that: After ye have arrived in the promised land, ye shall aknow that I, the Lord, am bGod; and that I, the Lord, did cdeliver you from destruction; yea, that I did bring you out of the land of Jerusalem.

Edited June 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Darren10]

Oh yeah, I mention that earlier and now JAHS gets all the credit!

I missed that post from you. In fact, I did not read the original thread regarding this thread if that is where you first mentioned this. So, kings to you.

[Brant Gardner]

I don’t think that the archaeological information available is sufficient to be able to make such sweeping general assertions.

I have read it. It is more than sufficient.

Professor Sorenson who has expertise in the field does not make such sweeping general assertions about pre-existing populations.

. . . in that article in the Ensign. I wouldn't extrapolate too much from that. Yes, I know him and have talked Book of Mormon with him.

Furthermore, the text of the BoM militates against it.

That would be the best reason of all, it one could make that case. It is a case of reading and interpreting the text, however. Absence of explicit mention does not explicitly mitigate anything. It simply says that it isn't mentioned.

it doesn’t make sense that the animals should be mentioned, the edible plants should be mentioned, metals should be mentioned, Mulekite and Jaredite finds should be mentioned, but never one human soul should be mentioned in 1,000 years of history. That just is not credible.

Make sense to whom? Make sense according to what understanding of history? Nephi had every reason to subsume all non-Nephites as Lamanites because then they become ancestral enemies and fit his understanding of the establishment of a new people according to the old pattern. There are many literary traits of 1 Nephi that strongly indicate that it was specifically crafted for a pre-determined purpose. That purpose was better served by a single enemy rather than multiple different cities. That we have that definition explicitly in Jacob underscores that definition.

That is a big assumption which like I said, finds no support in the BoM; and even Sorenson who has expertise in the field does not claim it.

You would do better not to make assumptions of what Sorenson believes based on a single article (in multiple pieces) in the Ensign. I've read most, if not all, of his Book of Mormon materials. I have also read other sources that discuss the pre-history of the area. There is no doubt that there were people there. Assuming a landing on the west coast of Guatemala (as Sorenson does). For example, Archaeologist Frederick Joseph Bové surveyed the archaeological sites along the Guatemalan coast for the period between 750 B.C. and 500 B.C.. and found “a total of 12 sites consisting of 6 primary centers, 2 secondary, 3 tertiary, [and] one fourth order place. Development of primary centers near the coast occurs with one primary center, . . . 17 km inland and another, . . . only 3 km from the shoreline.” Frederick Joseph Bové, “The Evolution of Chiefdoms and States on the Pacific Slope of Guatemala: A Spatial Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1981), 302.

That is only for the landing area, and a place less populated than the highlands at the time (where Sorenson believes Nephi went when he split from his brothers).

[Darren10]

Agreed.

It's pretty clear I think in the book of Jacob at the time of Nephi's death that he begins- and states that he is- using the term "Lamanite" to refer no longer to those who are descended from Laman, but to those who are not Nephites in a religious sense.

I recall from previous threads in a discussion with Dan Vogel and some others I had that it came up that the word "Maya" was originally used as a term somewhat equivalent to "foreigners", ie those who were NOT Mayan, but the Spanish began using that word to refer to the people we now know as Mayan and so the meaning was reversed, so that the "Mayans" become the foreigners (from the pov of the Spanish)

It is my uneducated opinion that maybe the term "Lamanite" in the sense of "non-Nephite" was similar in usage to or perhaps identical with, the term "Mayan" as used by the Mayans.

Very interesting.

[Brant Gardner]

The Lord didn't want them to come into contact with others on the way, because their journey was to be a secret one. They journeyed in the wilderness. Normally there aren't people wondering around in the wilderness.

You might look up S. Kent Brown, "New Light from Lehi's Trail." Available online: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8&chapid=61.

Brown is an excellent scholar of the area. He notes the impossibility of meeting other people during most of the trip because of the necessity of finding water, which was only in known locations and supported surrounding populations. They were also on the incense trail, which was well traveled.

The injunction not to use fire did not apply to the entire journey, but only the part after they left Nahom and traveled in the wilderness rather than the more common trail. They didn't use fire so they wouldn't attract the attention of the hostile tribes in the area.

By the way, the injunction against fire is exactly the kind of evidence that tells us that there were people in the area, even though the were not mentioned. Without others nearby, there was no reason to keep their location from anyone else.

[ERayR]

You might look up S. Kent Brown, "New Light from Lehi's Trail." Available online: http://maxwellinstit...kid=8&chapid=61.

Brown is an excellent scholar of the area. He notes the impossibility of meeting other people during most of the trip because of the necessity of finding water, which was only in known locations and supported surrounding populations. They were also on the incense trail, which was well traveled.

The injunction not to use fire did not apply to the entire journey, but only the part after they left Nahom and traveled in the wilderness rather than the more common trail. They didn't use fire so they wouldn't attract the attention of the hostile tribes in the area.

By the way, the injunction against fire is exactly the kind of evidence that tells us that there were people in the area, even though the were not mentioned. Without others nearby, there was no reason to keep their location from anyone else.

Brant, did you mean "He notes the impossibility of not meeting other people during most of the trip..." It doesn't make sense to me if you didn't but I don't want to read anything you did not mean.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, did you mean "He notes the impossibility of not meeting other people during most of the trip..." It doesn't make sense to me if you didn't but I don't want to read anything you did not mean.

Thank you for reading what I meant instead of what I wrote. Of course, I plan to use that excuse anytime I say something dumb. . .

[mfbukowski]

By the way, the injunction against fire is exactly the kind of evidence that tells us that there were people in the area, even though the were not mentioned. Without others nearby, there was no reason to keep their location from anyone else.

Yes, I was wondering about that one myself. On one hand they were supposedly traveling where there were no people and on the other, they supposedly were not to use fire to keep their presence secret. That's one you can't have both ways.

[mfbukowski]

. . . in that article in the Ensign. I wouldn't extrapolate too much from that. Yes, I know him and have talked Book of Mormon with him.

Yes but around here, if it is in Ensign, it is Official Church Doctrine, so now the good Dr. has been elevated to the level of an Apostle.

Don't you know how it goes around here?

[DBMormon]

really enjoyed the insight on Sherem. Also i may have a mancrush on Brant.... good post fellas

[Darren10]

Of all the descriptions of the contents of the "promised land" offered by the Book of Mormon I can't imagine a scenario where it's important to note that the land contains the ox, horse, (donkey "a" word), & wild goat yet failing to mention encountering a civilization. And if we are to put them in Mesoamerica we're talking about one of the classic civilizations of the ancient world who's very existence should be mind blowing to Lehi and family not to mention their cities, architecture, language, culture, art, music, sciences and religion.

It's hard to imagine that in 2012 modern people are discussing the Mayan civilization more than the Book of Mormon authors who essentially discovered them.

Phaedrus

This is actually a general response for everyone but most definitely addresses this observation. For the life of me I cannot find where I first encountered this but I'm pretty sure it was from FAIR. It was an article whch argued that the Book of Mormon is told from a lineage historical perspective. Like the Near East, lineage historical accounts assumes the author is focused on his story and that of his family and everyone else is irrelevant unless it helps to tell his story. I prime example in this article was given in regards to the lack of mentining Melchezidek by Abraham despite Melchezidek's importance in ancient Hebrew theology. But since Abraham spoke of Abraham, he needed not concern himself with others outside himself and his immediate family.

I think this helps exaplain the lack of mentioning of other peoples in the Book of Mormon. It is a story of Lehi, Nephi and their descendents andtheir relevance to their civilization.

[Darren10]

really enjoyed the insight on Sherem. Also i may have a mancrush on Brant.... good post fellas

(from Brant....)

Edited June 12, 2012 by Darren10

[ERayR]

Another thing that is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon is the riding and pack animals they took with them. They had to have taken camels but they are not mentioned. I Nephi 2:4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and ^adeparted into the wilderness. Those tents were not 2 man nylon pack tents. If you have never seen desert tents, well all I can say they are not small. Also they had provisions for 20-30 people. I would say more than a full field pack apiece. Don't you think the very least he could have said is "we loaded the camels and got out of town".

[robuchan]

Hey guys, can you get it straight.

Is it

a. Others are clearly identified and discussed when Nephi says "Zoramites, Jacobites, and all the rest", when Jacob talks about the existing branch on the olive tree, and when Sherem is clearly identified as an Other and his religion and education and background is clearly defined

or is it

b. study of ancient texts would explain why Others are explicitly and intentionally ignored

Because it can't be both, right?

[mfbukowski]

(from Brant....)

OK you guys, I like Brant too, but this is getting just a little weird-

[Darren10]

Don't you think the very least he could have said is "we loaded the camels and got out of town".

That would make a great line for a Clint Eastwood Arab western.

[Darren10]

OK you guys, I like Brant too, but this is getting just a little weird-

Heh!!!

[CASteinman]

This is a big one for me. I just do not see how the numbers add up unless there were others who bolstered the numbers.

There is no need for others to bolster the numbers, but with the numbers that we understand to be discussed in the Book of Mormon, it would seem unlikely that they did not encounter other people beyond just the Mulekites.

[ERayR]

There is no need for others to bolster the numbers, but with the numbers that we understand to be discussed in the Book of Mormon, it would seem unlikely that they did not encounter other people beyond just the Mulekites.

If there were none others I am convinced that there were large numbers of Jaredites who refused to participate in the Jaredite wars of extinction. I can see large refugee groups leaving and going off into the jungles to get away from it all. These would be valuable contacts to Lehi's family as they learned to survive in a very different environment than that from which they had come. I do not subscribe to the lemming theory that every single Jaredite flew into the battle and fell by the sword.

[CASteinman]

If there were none others I am convinced that there were large numbers of Jaredites who refused to participate in the Jaredite wars of extinction. I can see large refugee groups leaving and going off into the jungles to get away from it all. These would be valuable contacts to Lehi's family as they learned to survive in a very different environment than that from which they had come. I do not subscribe to the lemming theory that every single Jaredite flew into the battle and fell by the sword.

Very possible, reasonable and plausible. Not necessary for the numbers to work. But every bit helps.

One thing most people do not really think about is that the starting Immigration about 600 BC was not about 30 people but more like about 100 or more. (Mulekites included)

Edited June 12, 2012 by CASteinman

[ERayR]

Very possible, reasonable and plausible. Not necessary for the numbers to work. But every bit helps.

One thing most people do not really think about is that the starting Immigration about 600 BC was not about 30 people but more like about 100 or more. (Mulekites included)

Nephi's group and the Mulek group didn't come together until much later. About 400 or 500 years later.

[CASteinman]

Nephi's group and the Mulek group didn't come together until much later. About 400 or 500 years later.

That is right and it isn't until after that time that the numbers of people mentioned from time to time are large.

[ERayR]

That is right and it isn't until after that time that the numbers of people mentioned from time to time are large.

Sherem comes into play only 50 or so years after their arrival. Also large temple building projects are undertaken about this time. Not impossible but certainly more plausible for a larger population. In fifty years the Nephite population couldn't exceed more than 100 adult males, if that.

[Freedom]

Hey guys, can you get it straight.

Is it

a. Others are clearly identified and discussed when Nephi says "Zoramites, Jacobites, and all the rest", when Jacob talks about the existing branch on the olive tree, and when Sherem is clearly identified as an Other and his religion and education and background is clearly defined

or is it

b. study of ancient texts would explain why Others are explicitly and intentionally ignored

Because it can't be both, right?

This is like saying "are you happy because your journal mentions that you are having cake tonight, or are you happy because there is a cake on the table and it is fore you. It can't be both'. Do you see the silliness in your comment?