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

[CASteinman]

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.

The temple building was very shortly after they came on land. Before they had much time for population growth and before they would have had any time to build relationships with others such that they would be in charge and have them help build a Temple.

For a group of people who had built a large boat, building a temple would not be particularly overwhelming if it was not excessively large.

You are pretty much right.. in 50 years the population could not have reasonably been much beyond 100 men. But that's definitely enough to have built a Temple by then. In fact, I think Kirtland had only about 30 or 40 grown men in it when the Lord commended them to build a temple. Even 2 years after it had been completed there were only about 500 men in Kirtland -- after a period of rapid growth.

And a more modest Temple but one built on the outline of the Tabernacle would not be as difficult as the Kirtland Temple which has multiple stories and some ornate and difficult staircases and windows.

[zerinus]

Thanks for that. I really like it when someone points out something I've missed all these years. Especialy the small, subtle ones. You make a good point. Obviously he would not be a Lamanite either for the same reasons. The Nephite / Lamanite split was very recent at the time of Jacob and so they would very likely to have a knowledge ofthe Nephite language, thus it would be unremarkable (as you correctly put it) if he were Lamanite as well.

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

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.

I thought I addressed the Sherem question in post #19. Didn't you read that post, or are you just ignoring it?

Edited June 12, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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

Thank you. That looks like a good article, but too long for me to read right now. Later on when I get more time perhaps.

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.

Whether they actually came into contact with anyone or not, I do not know. I wouldn't be surprised if they did. All I know is that according to the text of the Book of Mormon, the Lord wanted them to avoid contact with others as much as possible--hence the ban on the use of fire during their journey.

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.

My reading of the BoM is that they ban covered all their journey until they came to the place they called Bountiful.

They didn't use fire so they wouldn't attract the attention of the hostile tribes in the area.

No argument--and for other possible reasons best known to the Lord, such as just wanting to keep the episode secret (3 Nephi 5:20).

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.

Sure; it also means that God wanted to keep their journey secret from them.

P.S. One noteworthy aspect of their journey is that it took them eight years to complete it, which is way to long if they had just kept moving. It is an interesting question why the Lord wanted to keep them in the wilderness for such a long time, before arriving at their destination? One possible explanation might be that the Lord wanted them to gain experience in self-reliance, and also in trusting the Lord rather than the world for their needs--traits what would be useful for them to survive in a totally alien territory by themselves, without the help of outsiders.

Edited June 12, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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.

Those are all very nice speculations; but at the end of the day we can only be certain about what the book actually tells us, which are:

1. It was predicted in the Book of Ether that "every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr" (Ether 13:21).
   
2. The Nephites mention the discover of Coriantumr and none else. If mentioning them was not important, why mention Coriantumr? If mentioning them was important, why mention only Coriantumr--unless he was the only one?
   
3. The Nephites make considerable mention of the Jaredite destroyed lands, their buildings, their ruins, their artefact, swords, shields, breastplates, dead bodies etc.; but no mention of anyone alive. Which do you think would have been more noteworthy of mention: living Jaredites or dead ones? How come only the dead ones get a mention, but not the living ones--unless there weren't any?
   

Does that prove that there were no surviving Jaredites? No. Does it make it the less likely scenario? Yes!

Edited June 12, 2012 by zerinus

[Brant Gardner]

P.S. One noteworthy aspect of their journey is that it took them eight years to complete it, which is way to long if they had just kept moving. It is an interesting question why the Lord wanted to keep them in the wilderness for such a long time, before arriving at their destination? One possible explanation might be that the Lord wanted them to gain experience in self-reliance, and also in trusting the Lord rather than the world for their needs--traits what would be useful for them to survive in a totally alien territory by themselves, without the help of outsiders.

Since the text gives no clear information, we are free to speculate. That is a very good speculation.

Brown's suggestion comes the closest to being based on evidence. He uses literary evidence to suggest that there were times when Lehi's family was held captive working off the fees for using the water at the various locations.

Not contradicting Brown, I think that one of the reasons is that the Lord had to have them arrive in Bountiful at a time coordinated with the rare winds that would shift enough to get them to the Americas. They are known to do that, but on a cycle. I have forgotten the number of years.

[robuchan]

If we are down to this level of logic, we don't need to continue the exchange. I will not be responding to your further.

Don't be so sensitive, Brant. This is just a reference back to the other thread on the timing issue, ie which came first the Others theory or the problems with Hemisphere model related to scientific evidence.

I apologize.

[zerinus]

Since the text gives no clear information, we are free to speculate. That is a very good speculation.

Brown's suggestion comes the closest to being based on evidence. He uses literary evidence to suggest that there were times when Lehi's family was held captive working off the fees for using the water at the various locations.

Thank you for the info. I had not been aware of that suggestion. But I am sceptical about it. Lehi’s journey into the wilderness was a miraculous event. It was the story of a miracle:

Alma 37:

40 And it did work for them according to their faith in God; therefore, if they had faith to believe that God could cause that those spindles should point the way they should go, behold, it was done; therefore they had this miracle, and also many other miracles wrought by the power of God, day by day.

41 Nevertheless, because those miracles were worked by small means it did show unto them marvelous works. They were slothful, and forgot to exercise their faith and diligence and then those marvelous works ceased, and they did not progress in their journey;

42 Therefore, they tarried in the wilderness, or did not travel a direct course, and were afflicted with hunger and thirst, because of their transgressions.

1 Nephi 17:

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 cook it not;

13 And I will also be your light 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 promised land; and ye shall know that it is by me that ye are led.

Everything was provided for them by miraculous means—as long as they were faithful. It does not conform to the logic of the story that they should become dependent on their hostile neighbours for their survival. In another place the narrative tells us:

1 Nephi 16:

15 And it came to pass that we did travel for the space of many days, slaying food by the way, with our bows and our arrows and our stones and our slings.

16 And we did follow the directions of the ball, which led us in the more fertile parts of the wilderness.

So the wilderness was not entirely hostile. There were fertile areas which the Lord directed them through. And fertility requires water. Beasts also require water. So if the land they passed through were “fertile” with vegetation to any degree, and also to support the beasts of the field, it means there were also sources of water that they could depend on such as spring water. They were led by the Lord. It is not logical that they should have had to sell themselves into bondage to buy water.

The Israelites survived in the wilderness of Sinai for forty years. They got their food miraculously in the form of Manna. Where did they get their water from? When they were at Mount Sinai, the Lord provided water for them miraculously from the rock. But as they journeyed to other parts of the wilderness, away from the original source of water, where did they get their water from? And according to the biblical figures, they numbered something like two million. The scripture doesn’t really tell us; we must assume that the Lord was able to and did provide for their needs as required. The same applied to the Lehites as they journeyed to the promised land.

Not contradicting Brown, I think that one of the reasons is that the Lord had to have them arrive in Bountiful at a time coordinated with the rare winds that would shift enough to get them to the Americas. They are known to do that, but on a cycle. I have forgotten the number of years.

The Lord is the master of the waves and the winds. He is not dependent on the seasons; the seasons depend on Him! He caused a terrible tempest to ravage their vessel when they were sinful; and then caused a great calm when Nephi prayed that it should be stopped (1 Nephi 18:21). He caused “a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters,” to drive the Jaredites forward towards their destination (Ether 6:5). He “causes the wind and the fire to be [His] chariot;” He says to the mountains, “Depart hence—and behold, they are taken away by a whirlwind, in an instant, suddenly” (Abraham 2:7). He does not need to depend on seasonal winds to drive the Lehite vessel forward.

Edited June 12, 2012 by zerinus

[Anijen]

Not willing to listen to or tolerate other people's views is prejudice. Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others makes one stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. Last of all, lacking flexibility to even try to try to see another point of view simply means one is close minded.

I will not be participating either.

until courtesy is restored

Jeff Holt (aka Anijen)

Edited June 12, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[zerinus]

Not willing to listen to or tolerate other people's views is prejudice. Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others makes one stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. Last of all, lacking flexibility to even try to try to see another point of view simply means one is close minded.

I will not be participating either.

until courtesy is restored

Jeff Holt (aka Anijen)

So you participated in order to tell us that you will not be participating? Ummm, very interesting participation. Was there anything you wanted to add to that by any chance?

[zerinus]

Another interesting scripture that has just come to my mind:

Jacob 7:

26 And it came to pass that I, Jacob, began to be old; and the record of this people being kept on the other plates of Nephi, wherefore, I conclude this record, declaring that I have written according to the best of my knowledge, by saying that the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem, born in tribulation, in a wilderness, and hated of our brethren, which caused wars and contentions; wherefore, we did mourn out our days.

This was spoken by Jacob towards the end of his life, close to seventy years after they had arrived in the promised land. It does not exactly portray Jacob as being in the company of great pre-existing civilizations.

[mfbukowski]

Who told thee thou wast lonesome?

In other words, if that is all you knew, would you be "lonesome"?. On the contrary, you are only lonesome when you used to being with people.

I was an only child and also lived alone for 10 years, and I never was "lonely" neither as a kid nor as an adult living alone. Frankly now that I have a sizeable family, sometimes I feel I could use a little "loneliness"!

[zerinus]

Who told thee thou wast lonesome?

In other words, if that is all you knew, would you be "lonesome"?. On the contrary, you are only lonesome when you used to being with people.

I was an only child and also lived alone for 10 years, and I never was "lonely" neither as a kid nor as an adult living alone. Frankly now that I have a sizeable family, sometimes I feel I could use a little "loneliness"!

Edited June 13, 2012 by zerinus

[Calm]

cast out from Jerusalem

Maybe a little dramatizing on Jacob's part? Didn't they choose to leave (with good reason)? If one sneaks out of a city to escape imprisonment or death and avoids the attention of the city dwellers successfully, how can one say those city people "cast out" their people?

It seems like claiming one was fired from one's job when the reality was that one quit...even if one quit to avoid suspension or termination after all.

Those who ask for their name to be removed from church lists make a big deal about how they were not excommunicated.

So it seems to me Jacob's language is being used for rhetorical purposes here and is not entirely accurate.

Edited June 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Freedom]

Another interesting scripture that has just come to my mind:

Jacob 7:

26 And it came to pass that I, Jacob, began to be old; and the record of this people being kept on the other plates of Nephi, wherefore, I conclude this record, declaring that I have written according to the best of my knowledge, by saying that the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem, born in tribulation, in a wilderness, and hated of our brethren, which caused wars and contentions; wherefore, we did mourn out our days.

This was spoken by Jacob towards the end of his life, close to seventy years after they had arrived in the promised land. It does not exactly portray Jacob as being in the company of great pre-existing civilizations.

Well, unfortunately this verse contradicts your argument. Clearly they were not alone because in this very same verse it mentions the Lamanites. Furthermore, lonesome does not mean alone, but it means sad or depressed. He was referring back to Jerusalem, not about his current location. Visit a new refuge and you will hear the same lament.

[zerinus]

Maybe a little dramatizing on Jacob's part? Didn't they choose to leave (with good reason)? If one sneaks out of a city to escape imprisonment or death and avoids the attention of the city dwellers successfully, how can one say those city people "cast out" their people?

It seems like claiming one was fired from one's job when the reality was that one quit...even if one quit to avoid suspension or termination after all.

Those who ask for their name to be removed from church lists make a big deal about how they were not excommunicated.

So it seems to me Jacob's language is being used for rhetorical purposes here and is not entirely accurate.

Well, he doesn't sound quite like he is eating Enchiladas and sipping Tequilas in Mayan bars and restaurants every evening, does he.

[mfbukowski]

Well, unfortunately this verse contradicts your argument. Clearly they were not alone because in this very same verse it mentions the Lamanites. Furthermore, lonesome does not mean alone, but it means sad or depressed. He was referring back to Jerusalem, not about his current location. Visit a new refuge and you will hear the same lament.

An excellent point about the Lamanites, but you can't have it both ways- either he is talking about the Lamanites or Jerusalem- and I don't think there are accounts of "wars" in Jerusalem- so it must be the Lamanites.

I am still wondering where all these supposed persecutors came from who made his life so miserable, and with whom they had "wars" since there were only - what- less than 50 who came over on the boat about 70 or 80 years earlier.

[ERayR]

Maybe a little dramatizing on Jacob's part? Didn't they choose to leave (with good reason)? If one sneaks out of a city to escape imprisonment or death and avoids the attention of the city dwellers successfully, how can one say those city people "cast out" their people?

It seems like claiming one was fired from one's job when the reality was that one quit...even if one quit to avoid suspension or termination after all.

Those who ask for their name to be removed from church lists make a big deal about how they were not excommunicated.

So it seems to me Jacob's language is being used for rhetorical purposes here and is not entirely accurate.

Also lonesome does not mean without contact with others but rather depicts being disconnected.

[Freedom]

I have stated this earlier but will repeat it. These lamanites, according to Jacob, delight in blood shed. If they delight in blood shed, they must be killing somebody. Also, if the Lamanites are constantly at war, they must be fighting someone. If is the Nephites, I don't see how they could be delighting because the latter would have become extinct quit quickly but instead they continued to thrive. Are we to presume that, despite all this war and blood shedding, nobody gets killed on either side?

I have a suggestion that may address this conundrum. There were others present. I know. Crazy. But if you think about it, it answers all the problems with the text. Not only that, it would make the text consistent with other similar texts of similar vintage and local. Also, it would give further credibility to the notion that it was written in a hebrew style.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Freedom

[rodheadlee]

Also lonesome does not mean without contact with others but rather depicts being disconnected.

This is true. I'm lonely in Key West. No family for thousands of miles and no friends for hundreds of miles. There must be 20k people here. I've been to church a few times, it's ok. the people are nice but it's not home.

[mfbukowski]

I have stated this earlier but will repeat it. These lamanites, according to Jacob, delight in blood shed. If they delight in blood shed, they must be killing somebody. Also, if the Lamanites are constantly at war, they must be fighting someone. If is the Nephites, I don't see how they could be delighting because the latter would have become extinct quit quickly but instead they continued to thrive. Are we to presume that, despite all this war and blood shedding, nobody gets killed on either side?

I have a suggestion that may address this conundrum. There were others present. I know. Crazy. But if you think about it, it answers all the problems with the text. Not only that, it would make the text consistent with other similar texts of similar vintage and local. Also, it would give further credibility to the notion that it was written in a hebrew style.

The first time I read the Book of Mormon I had a strong spiritual testimony if its "truth" but frankly the first thing I thought was "There is no way this could have happened this way if everyone was descended from the few in Lehi's boat"

In my opinion the only way the BOM can be seen as historical on a rational as opposed to totally spiritual basis is that it MUST include the presumption that there were "others". I have always believed that, since the first time I read it 32 or so years ago.

Who knows- there could have even been imported animals brought by who knows who- including a few horses, elephants, who knows? Mesoamerica is at the cross roads between two continents so you would have to believe that in all those years- thousands- and with all that coastline in both North and South America, NO ONE else EVER made the crossing bringing who knows what?? And that is totally discounting the Bering sea land bridge- which we KNOW brought immigrants

I would like to see anyone try to prove that proposition that no one made the crossing. To me it is totally inconceivable that there would be no "others".

Any technologies, any people who were anywhere else on the earth at that time could have ended up there in limited quantities, perhaps not to thrive but to establish a presence.

We could dig up the entirety of the two continents and not find all the evidence of what had been there.

[zerinus]

Another interesting verse to look at. The following scripture has been quoted several times as evidence of the existence of “others” on the American continent; the argument being that the structure of the sentence (referring to Sherem as “a man”) implies that he was a none-Nephite stranger, rather than someone (i.e. a family member) with whom Jacob should have been familiar, and therefore speak of in more intimate terms, rather than calling him “a man:”

Jacob 7:

1 And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem.

If so, should we not conclude that the next “king” of the Nephites, whom Nephi anointed to succeed him, was also a stranger, because he is also referred to in the same unfamiliar terms, “a man”?

Jacob 1:

9 Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings.

So did Nephi anoint an alien outsider to be king to the Nephites, rather than one of his own or father’s descendents?

[Freedom]

Another interesting verse to look at. The following scripture has been quoted several times as evidence of the existence of “others” on the American continent; the argument being that the structure of the sentence (referring to Sherem as “a man”) implies that he was a none-Nephite stranger, rather than someone (i.e. a family member) with whom Jacob should have been familiar, and therefore speak of in more intimate terms, rather than calling him “a man:”

Jacob 7:

1 And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem.

If so, should we not conclude that the next “king” of the Nephites, whom Nephi anointed to succeed him, was also a stranger, because he is also referred to in the same unfamiliar terms, “a man”?

Jacob 1:

9 Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings.

So did Nephi anoint an alien outsider to be king to the Nephites, rather than one of his own or father’s descendents?

I don't know, but doesn't it seem equally odd that they don't name him? Isn't identifying the new king as significant a news story as finding others? Why wouldn't it say 'he anointed his son' or 'he anointed his brother' or 'he anointed his nephew' or 'he anointed Fred' or who ever this man was. This verse only serves to weaken your argument further.

[zerinus]

I don't know, but doesn't it seem equally odd that they don't name him?

Odd or not, what do you think it implies? Does it implies that he was an alien outsider?

Isn't identifying the new king as significant a news story as finding others? Why wouldn't it say 'he anointed his son' or 'he anointed his brother' or 'he anointed his nephew' or 'he anointed Fred' or who ever this man was. This verse only serves to weaken your argument further.

So you reckon because he fails to mention the new king by name, we can safely assume that they also met "others" on the land, which they equally failed to mention? Hmmm, you lost me there.

Edited June 14, 2012 by zerinus

[ERayR]

Odd or not, what do you think it implies? Does it implies that he was an alien outsider?

So you reckon because he fails to mention the new king by name, we can safely assume that they also met "others" on the land, which they equally failed to mention? Hmmm, you lost me there.

Please don't be obtuse. What it does is undermine your argument that just because no others were mentioned that their were no others. Is it not reasonable to think they would have named their anointed king before they would mention others. It seems like the type of thing one would record(the name of the new king). Mentioning others wouldn't be such a big thing, especially if they were relatively numerous.

[Freedom]

Odd or not, what do you think it implies? Does it implies that he was an alien outsider?

So you reckon because he fails to mention the new king by name, we can safely assume that they also met "others" on the land, which they equally failed to mention? Hmmm, you lost me there.

I am suggesting to you that you have proven that what would appear to be critical information is left out. Why is it that you have no problem with him failing to name the king, but take issue with them not mentioning others? This does not prove others, it just highlights your hypocrisy.