Alma 43:13,14 No Others

[cursor]

Here is a piece that my father wrote in 1992:

I Have a Question [Nephite Population]

I have heard that the sizes of the Nephite and Lamanite populations indicated in the Book of Mormon do not make sense. What do we know about their numbers?

John L. Sorenson, professor of anthropology, emeritus, Brigham Young University, and Gospel Doctrine teacher, Edgemont Seventh Ward, Provo Utah Edgemont South Stake.

Discussions of this topic tend to one extreme or the other. Some people have made invalid assumptions about possible rates of natural increase among Lehi’s descendants. For example, growth rates derived from modern population studies are useless if they refer to conditions unlike those prevailing in Book of Mormon times. We have no way of knowing whether the newcomers had trouble adapting to the climate and new foods. Nor do we know what diseases afflicted the people at that time. On the other hand, we get nowhere by speculating on unknowable things like a doubling of population every generation among the early immigrants.

Although the Book of Mormon is silent on population growth and decline as such, it does provide glimpses of how the numbers were growing. For example, the data on armies and battle casualties indicate quite consistent growth.

An obvious puzzle is how the Lamanites could have become so much more numerous than the Nephites. The early Lamanites are pictured as being dependent on hunting; the Nephites, on farming. (See 2 Ne. 5:11, 24.) Although it is a certain rule in population studies that hunting groups cannot support nearly as many people as can farmers, more than two hundred years later the Nephite record says the Lamanites were “exceedingly more numerous” (Jarom 1:6) than the Nephites, and that pattern continues all along. Simple natural increase by births cannot account for this difference.

The same problem surfaces in Alma 43:14 where we learn that the Amulonites were “as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites.” And yet the Amulonites had begun less than seventy years earlier when Noah’s priests carried off Lamanite women to be their wives. (See Mosiah 20.)

The answers to such puzzles must lie in situations beyond normal population growth. In this regard, the case of the early Nephites is helpful. Mosiah, father of Benjamin, fled the land of Nephi sometime before 200 B.C. with “as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord.” (Omni 1:13.) The record implies that only a part of the Nephites existing at that time went with Mosiah to Zarahemla.

Jarom 1:13 had already mentioned dissensions from the Nephites, no later than 360 B.C. The dissenters, like later ones, could have settled among the Lamanites, swelling their numbers while reducing the size of the Nephite group. Also, after Mosiah’s refugees went to Zarahemla, some of the Nephites left behind may have joined the Lamanites, for no further mention is made of them (unless they became the Amalekites, referred to in Alma 43:13 as dissenters but having an unexplained origin).

Archaeological evidence from all New World areas where the early Nephites and Lamanites could have lived makes clear that peoples who descended from the Jaredite era also lived during the time of Lehi’s descendants. Given Laman and Lemuel’s ambition to rule, perhaps they or their descendants ruled over and absorbed such “natives.” Nephite record keepers perhaps did not know the details of that process, but that is the best explanation that I know of for the remarkable growth in the number of Lamanites.

The case of the numerous Amulonites can be explained on similar grounds—taking control over a resident population.

An interesting note is that some such natives might have lived with or near the early Nephites. Notice that when Sherem “came … among the people of Nephi” (within the lifetime of Jacob, Lehi’s son), he “sought much opportunity” to meet Jacob. (See Jacob 7:1–3.) Yet, the entire population descended from the original Nephites could not have exceeded a hundred adults by that time. In such a tiny tribe, why had Sherem not already met Jacob—unless he was from a foreign group that had come under the rule of the Nephite king?

These cases teach us that there is simply not enough information in the scriptural record to construct a clear picture of Nephite and Lamanite population sizes over time. Nor can we estimate with surety how war, famine, dissensions, contentions, and other factors affected population growth. In short, our presently limited record discourages any attempt to interpret Nephite or Lamanite population history.

Yet there is no reason to question the population numbers in the Book of Mormon. They are all believable once we recognize some of the historical and biological factors that could have been involved.

[Bernard Gui]

Yet, one of the most common arguments for Others is to pull out a mathematical model to evaluate population size at the time of the Jacob/Sherem account.

Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed.

The Lamanite population is defined thoroughly.

That's a pretty thorough description. No Others mentioned.

So their numbers were about equal. In the ensuing war, the Lamanite army is almost annihilated. Yet in just a few

years more Nephite dissenters raise up another Lamanite army in even greater numbers. This could happen only

if they were recruiting from other peoples who hated the Nephites.

Moreover, the description of the tactics used in these wars indicates they took place in a fairly small area.

Bernard

Edited July 9, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[robuchan]

So their numbers were about equal. In the ensuing war, the Lamanite army is almost annihilated. Yet in just a few

years more Nephite dissenters raise up another Lamanite army in even greater numbers. This could happen only

if they were recruiting from other peoples who hated the Nephites.

Moreover, the description of the tactics used in these wars indicates they took place in a fairly small area.

Bernard

What are your source verses for this:

So their numbers were about equal. In the ensuing war, the Lamanite army is almost annihilated.

But really it doesn't matter. I'm learning the game.

Are you skilled in ancient texts? Can you tell me precisely what is meant by the following words or phrases: thousands, descendants, numerous, as numerous, nearly, unto bloodshed, armies, borders, weaker part of the people, city, quarter of the land, destroy, more ^anumerous, double, stop shedding their blood.

Are we to interpret these words and phrases from ancient text the same as 21st century America?

Am I doing it right?

No, start responding to the answers instead of changing the subject or you need to find another board.

[zerinus]

i'm baffled by this. Noah's ark story is something clearly taken as figurative by any believer with the smallest trust in science. Are you suggesting the BOM is myth not to be taken literal?

While I am agreeing with much of what you are saying, this is one thing that I am going to have to disagree with. Noah's ark story is not figurative, and neither is the Book of Mormon story.

[ERMD]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[zerinus]

The Lamanite population is defined thoroughly.

I don't see that.

I think he means that it is defined thoroughly enough to exclude the "Others" theory, or to make it the less likely occurrence as far information provided by the Book of Mormon itself is concerned.

[zerinus]

Thank you robuchan, I like your analytical thinking on this subject, and appreciate your well reasoned posts (here as well as in the other thread). Did you say you were not a Mormon by the way? If so, then perhaps it is about time you became one! You are already showing a much better understanding of the Book of Mormon than most of the Mormons round here.

[robuchan]

Thank you robuchan, I like your analytical thinking on this subject, and appreciate your well reasoned posts (here as well as in the other thread). Did you say you were not a Mormon by the way? If so, then perhaps it is about time you became one! You are already showing a much better understanding of the Book of Mormon than most of the Mormons round here.

I am a Mormon but am no longer a believer. I've read the BOM a dozen times. I'm rereading it this year for the first time in quite a while, as I'm teaching it for a Primary class. It's the first time I've read it with with the LGT in mind, specifically this Others/mixing populations theory. I think LGT/Others is complete hogwash, from the perspective of looking internally at the text.

[ERayR]

I am a Mormon but am no longer a believer. I've read the BOM a dozen times. I'm rereading it this year for the first time in quite a while, as I'm teaching it for a Primary class. It's the first time I've read it with with the LGT in mind, specifically this Others/mixing populations theory. I think LGT/Others is complete hogwash, from the perspective of looking internally at the text.

Not if you look at the Book of Mormon as being the product of a redactor whose purpose was in testifying of Christ and not in testifying of others or of giving an ethnic catalog.

Edited July 9, 2012 by ERayR

[robuchan]

Not if you look at the Book of Mormon as being the product of a redactor whose purpose was in testifying of Christ and not in testifying of others or of giving an ethnic catalog.

Which again I'm fine with, as long as you don't pick and choose which historical details you're going to use or not use.

[ERayR]

Which again I'm fine with, as long as you don't pick and choose which historical details you're going to use or not use.

When Nephi is presented as leaving Jerusalem about 600 B.C. can we use that? When an event is presented as happening in the xx year of the reign of the judges can we use that? There is a lot of history that is presented that is pertinent to the narrative that Mormon is presenting. It has to be used. Frankly I think it is only reasonable that there were others. That said I don't really care if there was or not. Whether there were others or not does not change the message of Jesus Christ or not. It is just that for me some things make more sense if the others theory is true. Quit getting hung up on the small stuff and let the message change your life.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

[13] And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah.

[14] Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed.

The Lamanite population is defined thoroughly.

Lamanites who were a:

• compound of Laman and Lemuel
  
• sons of Ishmael
  
• all those who dissented from Nephites
  

all those who dissented from Nephites broken down:

• Amalekites
  
• Zoramites
  
• descendants of the priests of Noah
  

That's a pretty thorough description. No Others mentioned.

Odd opening post for a thread...are you answering or speaking to a previous thread?

[robuchan]

When Nephi is presented as leaving Jerusalem about 600 B.C. can we use that? When an event is presented as happening in the xx year of the reign of the judges can we use that? There is a lot of history that is presented that is pertinent to the narrative that Mormon is presenting. It has to be used.

I'll ignore the insults. I'm taking a lot of them in these threads, and I'm trying to maintain being as civil and respectful as possible. I got banned from the other thread, where I think some important points related to LGT/Others were being discussed. I don't want to be banned anymore.

As for your questions? I think they are very important questions. I think they're best answered by the apologists. I would say yes they are reliable details, and should be included in analysis. But then I would also say ages, birth dates, death dates, lineage declarations, father/son identifications, number of people killed at a battlefield, etc, also should be reliable. It's difficult for me to discern. When the apologists tell me why one set of historical detail should be trusted and another set shouldn't, you'll have to excuse the skepticism. Maybe the apologists should explain why one set of historical detail should be ignored and another set should be trusted.

[ERayR]

I'll ignore the insults. I'm taking a lot of them in these threads, and I'm trying to maintain being as civil and respectful as possible. I got banned from the other thread, where I think some important points related to LGT/Others were being discussed. I don't want to be banned anymore.

As for your questions? I think they are very important questions. I think they're best answered by the apologists. I would say yes they are reliable details, and should be included in analysis. But then I would also say ages, birth dates, death dates, lineage declarations, father/son identifications, number of people killed at a battlefield, etc, also should be reliable. It's difficult for me to discern. When the apologists tell me why one set of historical detail should be trusted and another set shouldn't, you'll have to excuse the skepticism. Maybe the apologists should explain why one set of historical detail should be ignored and another set should be trusted.

Not trying to be insulting. Sorry it came across that way. I was responding to this:

robuchan, on 09 July 2012 - 03:03 PM, said: Which again I'm fine with, as long as you don't pick and choose which historical details you're going to use or not use.

I am seriously asking, using my premise, which historical information do you think is usable.

Ages/birth dates - Ive never paid much attention to. Maybe I should but I have never considered them central to the message of Jesus Christ.

Linage declarations - I am assuming you are talking about Nephite, Lamanite, etc. Mostly those declarations are similar to us declaring we are republicans or democrats, etc. Example of how loosly these terms are used is when the large lamanite group was converted by Ammon they dropped the name they had been going by and called themselves Ammonites. They were not Ammon's relatives but were brothers in the gospel.The name became a tribal/political designation. Same with Nephite, Lamanite, etc.

Battlefield casualty estimates are always suspect. Depending on who is reporting them. Battlefield casualty estimate probably accurate to an extent with room for margin of error.

Edited July 9, 2012 by ERayR

[zerinus]

I am a Mormon but am no longer a believer. I've read the BOM a dozen times. I'm rereading it this year for the first time in quite a while, as I'm teaching it for a Primary class. It's the first time I've read it with with the LGT in mind, specifically this Others/mixing populations theory. I think LGT/Others is complete hogwash, from the perspective of looking internally at the text.

Thank you, I entirely agree--Except that LGT at its most basic level is an inevitability. There is no way that the small handful of Israelites landing somewhere on the eastern shore of the Americas could have covered the entire continent immediately. So LGT lasted for a very long time. The only remaining question is quite how far did they expand into North and South America in the last three or four hundred years of their history; a question to which the Book of Mormon does not give exact answers.

[volgadon]

Yes, I read the verses. I didn't understand your point. It seems to #1 in my list, but I wasn't sure.

Longevity was a key aspect of the messianic age.You keep parrotting 'unreliable,' but rarely seem to look at context.

[Anijen]

There is no way that the small handful of Israelites landing somewhere on the eastern shore of the Americas could have covered the entire continent immediately.

Why do you assume Eastern shore? It does not say that in the text. I thought you guys had to have it in the text or it isn't so. That was yours and Robuchans argument for no others (that it others are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon). Emphasis mine.

But it's okay to teach something as a fact although it isn't in the text just as long as it fits your agenda?

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Anijen]

I'm rereading it this year for the first time in quite a while, as I'm teaching it for a Primary class.

Congratulations

Edited to add; I was over board and apologize.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[cursor]

I'll ignore the insults. I'm taking a lot of them in these threads, and I'm trying to maintain being as civil and respectful as possible.

I personally apologize for my previously expressed frustration. Perhaps we can exercise added care when posting. I promise to make a sincere effort.

I've read the BOM a dozen times. I'm rereading it this year for the first time in quite a while, as I'm teaching it for a Primary class. It's the first time I've read it with with the LGT in mind

@ Jeff Holt: robuchan did not suggest that he'd be teaching Primary children about LGT. Instead, it seems to me, while he has assumed the responsibility of teaching the Book of Mormon to Primary children, he is re-reading the text ... for the thirteenth+ time. While doing so, he is evaluating the text in light of the LGT (Limited Geography Theory) for the first time That's cool.

Perhaps if we can abstain from using sarcasm (a technique that doesn't work well with online, textual discussion forums) and unnecessary insults (Yes, I'm included), collective discussion can result in some responsible, intellectual convergence.

SoWhaddyallthink?

Edited July 9, 2012 by cursor

[Anijen]

SoWhaddyallthink?

I will try my best.

This is the edited version.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[CASteinman]

I think he means that it is defined thoroughly enough to exclude the "Others" theory, or to make it the less likely occurrence as far information provided by the Book of Mormon itself is concerned.

Yes but I still do not see that.

[Anijen]

Edited to say; Big bad me is going to bite his tongue .

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[CASteinman]

I'm trying to maintain being as civil and respectful as possible.

Well... Civil anyway.

[CASteinman]

One can be assertive in the defense of our faith without an ad hominem attack.

I do not see why ad hominem should be removed from the quiver of arrows. After all, it can be a legitimate argument. Why should some bad archers cause all bowmen to remove that weapon from their assortment?

[Anijen]

I do not see why ad hominem should be removed from the quiver of arrows. After all, it can be a legitimate argument. Why should some bad archers cause all bowmen to remove that weapon from their assortment?

I agree but on this board they [ad hominems] are not allowed. So I will choose to bite my tongue. Either way I have been posting along time, people who read any of my posts over the years know I usually say things how I feel. They know what positions I take. and I side with Elder McConkie and say the caravan will still move on.

Edited. I will try to follow the admonition of Alma and be bold with out being overbearing.

Fluffy clouds, fluffy clouds....

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt