Alma 43:13,14 No Others

[KevinG]

You can't use Jarom's description of the relative size of Lamanites vs Nephites to mean anything by the time you get to Alma 43 because you have large groups switching sides. Several sub-groups moving from Nephites to Lamanites and a large group, the people of Ammon, moving from Lamanites to Nephites.

Makes it difficult to disprove the Book of Mormon using DNA doesn't it.

[robuchan]

Makes it difficult to disprove the Book of Mormon using DNA doesn't it.

How so?

[zerinus]

It's necessary for LGT. According to LGT, BOM people lived in the same area and times as well defined civilizations that don't fit with the BOM. The way to make this work is the Other/mixing population theory: Lehites were quickly absorbed into larger cultures.

That may be according to some LGT theories, but not all of them. The bare elements of LGT is that the Nephites and Lamanites were geographically confined to a very small area (throughout their history), rather than expanding to cover the whole of North and South America. The theory is not dependent on the existence or non-existence of "others" in the same area--or further afield.

Edited July 10, 2012 by zerinus

[Bernard Gui]

Can you provide source for this:

"So their numbers were about equal"

Alma 43

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.

It depends on what is meant by "those descendants." It can't refer to the priests of Noah because they were destroyed by the Lamanites (Alma 25:4). I take it to mean the sides were equally divided. I could be wrong.

51 Now, the Lamanites were more numerous, yea, by more than double the number of the Nephites; nevertheless, they were driven insomuch that they were gathered together in one body in the valley, upon the bank by the river Sidon. (Book of Mormon, Alma, Chapter 43)

However, this was only part of Moroni's army. The rest had been sent to defend Jershon. (verse 25)

Also, I don't think you can say the Lamanites were annihilated. Captain Moroni took mercy on them.

But not before Zerahemnah and his few remaining followers were obliged to face extermination.

Still, the Nephite dissenter Amalickiah was able to amass huge Lamanite forces for the next campaign which ended in disaster for his forces, and yet again for his second campaign.

Bernard

Edited July 10, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[ERayR]

That may be according to some LGT theories, but not all of them. The bare elements of LGT is that the Nephites and Lamanites were geographically confined to a very small area (throughout their history), rather than expanding to cover the whole of North and South America. The theory is not dependent on the existence or non-existence of "others" in the same area--or further afield.

No the LGT is not that they didn't expand beyond that small area. It is that the Book of Mormon record only covers that small area and we don't have the records of those beyond that area. The Book of Mormon explicitly records some of those expansions.

[Anijen]

Out of all the books I have ever read, very few books I have read twice, and only one book can I say I have probably read over a hundred times (over the course of my life). As one who has studied the Book of Mormon daily. I have made it a habit to read daily around 5 chapters per day. That does not include searching for certain topics such as geography or demography in the Book of Mormon. I do not work a regular schedule. I am 49 years old and basically retired. Looking on the bright side I can say I am blessed with much time to pursue further education and study topics that interest me.

I believe that the Nephites and Lamanites did indeed interact with the indigenous people of America. I do not need the text to specifically point out that interaction for me to accept this idea. I do believe that taking all considerations from the text that it implies others, and therefore I disagree strongly with Robuchan and Zerinous.

One such refrence is the following;

Jacob 1:14

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

This verse, like many, separate the people into two groups; those that seek to destroy or those that are friendly. In this chapter a careful reading does not name these two groups being only the descendants of Lehi. Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[cursor]

A l m a 4 3

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.

When considering numbers here, I think that it's important to recognize that only military forces are likely being referenced. The Lamanite armies surely didn't bring their families in tow on this military offensive. And no doubt some Lamanite (including all mentioned factions) men stayed at home to protect their families and their homeland. The "Nephites" mentioned here are likely only those military forces that were assigned to protect the people of Ammon (who would not defend themselves).

Edited July 10, 2012 by cursor

[cursor]

J a c o b 1

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

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

This verse, like many separate the people into two groups those that seek to destroy or those that are friendly. In this chapter a careful reading does not name these two groups being only the descendants of Lehi.

And that's coming from the first generation of Lehite record keepers.

Edited July 10, 2012 by cursor

[Anijen]

Another point that has nothing to do with demography but for a Mesoamerican setting, is Jacob 1:4

And if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our people.

Not saying this is a bulls eye (not even close) but still fun.

Or the cool but still not a bulls eye, from Alma 12:1;

he opened his mouth and began to speak unto him, and to establish the words of Amulek, and to explain things beyond, or to unfold the scriptures beyond that which Amulek had done.

having fun studying...

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Bernard Gui]

When considering numbers here, I think that it's important to recognize that only military forces are likely being referenced. The Lamanite armies surely didn't bring their families in tow on this military offensive. And no doubt some Lamanite (including all mentioned factions) men stayed at home to protect their families and their homeland. The "Nephites" that mentioned here are likely only those military forces that were assigned to protect the people of Ammon (who would not defend themselves).

That is why I refer to the apparent ease with which the Lamanite armies are replenished.

Bernard

[ERayR]

A l m a 4 3

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.

When considering numbers here, I think that it's important to recognize that only military forces are likely being referenced. The Lamanite armies surely didn't bring their families in tow on this military offensive. And no doubt some Lamanite (including all mentioned factions) men stayed at home to protect their families and their homeland. The "Nephites" mentioned here are likely only those military forces that were assigned to protect the people of Ammon (who would not defend themselves).

To be more accurate could not defend themselves because of covenant but that is a discussion for another thread.

[Calm]

To be more accurate could not defend themselves because of covenant but that is a discussion for another thread.

How about "should not"?

[ERayR]

How about "should not"?

I think could not because if they had broken their covenants it would have been like us deliberately setting aside our temple covenants.

[Calm]

I think could not because if they had broken their covenants it would have been like us deliberately setting aside our temple covenants.

I could get into an argument about how "could" indicates capacity and not duty, but I shouldn't, so i won't.

[robuchan]

J a c o b 1

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

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

And that's coming from the first generation of Lehite record keepers.

Isn't Jacob simply consolidating the names?

Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites >> Nephites

Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites >> Lamanites

Also, makes you wonder what happened to Sam.

[robuchan]

.

One such refrence is the following;

This verse, like many, separate the people into two groups; those that seek to destroy or those that are friendly. In this chapter a careful reading does not name these two groups being only the descendants of Lehi.

?? This verse is a continuation of the previous verse where he lists all the groups: Lemuelites, etc. No Others.

[ERayR]

I could get into an argument about how "could" indicates capacity and not duty, but I shouldn't, so i won't.

I see where you are coming from. Are we agreed in principle then and only haggling over a word? If so I surrender.

[ERayR]

Isn't Jacob simply consolidating the names?

Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites >> Nephites

Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites >> Lamanites

Also, makes you wonder what happened to Sam.

Yes he is just consolidating the groups but he doesn't give details to who was included in the groups.

[cursor]

To be more accurate could not defend themselves because of covenant but that is a discussion for another thread.

The term 'would' seems to work at Alma 23:6 — "Now there was not one soul among all the people who had been converted unto the Lord that would take up arms against their brethren ..."

But you're right, it's just a bit off topic.

[cinepro]

These are the verses which he had quoted:

I agree with him that the description is sufficiently thorough that if there had been "others" involved, that one would expect them to have been mentioned. This argument is strengthened further when the phenomenon is observed consistently throughout the whole of the Book of Mormon.

From reading those verses one gets the impression that the author is trying to account for all the major ethnic strands which define the specific populations. He is not trying to leave any out--unless perhaps they are so small as to be insignificant contributors--which would exclude the "Others" theory as promulgated in this forum.

This also happens in Jacob, where Jacob gives us an inventory of all the different people in the land:

Jacob 1

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

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

It's like the song "Tradition" in Fiddler on the Roof, where we get introduced to all the people in the Jewish community. After we meet everyone, there is a point (

) where the "others" are acknowledged.

There are obviously many good theories and arguments for all the reasons about how the "others" were there, living their lives in cultures and communities in and around the "Nephites" and "Lamanites", sometimes joining with them, converting to and away from their religion, being ruled by them, warring for or against them, adopting their cultural attitudes and prejudices, or just ignoring them.

But the logical (and anthropological) necessity for them being there doesn't negate the fact that, when you read the text, they just aren't there.

[robuchan]

Yes he is just consolidating the groups but he doesn't give details to who was included in the groups.

We're one or two generations into America. How is this not intuitive?

[ERayR]

We're one or two generations into America. How is this not intuitive?

Yet there are those who would limit those groups to descendants of the people whose name the group bears and yet we have seen groups take identifying names of people they were not related to.

[Anijen]

?? This verse is a continuation of the previous verse where he lists all the groups: Lemuelites, etc. No Others.

It is a continuation however, to claim the absolute there were no others is unfounded. Jacob makes a simply definition of what a Lamanite is or what a Nephite is. One group is the enemy the other are friendly. Since it is history of how Lehi and his family came to America and the sons split up he uses some of the people that were mentioned and also puts them in the group whether friendly or not. Notice that the families that fled into the wilderness were Zoramites (from Zoram), Nephites (from Nephi), well you get the point. You even made the point about Sam;

Isn't Jacob simply consolidating the names? Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites >> Nephites Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites >> Lamanites

Also, makes you wonder what happened to Sam.

Since Sam was not mentioned does that mean his descendants did not exist? Does that mean his descendants were absent from the wars? You are making my point for me. There were others.

Now a further reading of verse 13 says;

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

Note, that even some Lamanites and Lemuelites were also called Nephites. This distinguishes that some Lamanites were friendly. Hence the next verse he simplifies to a friendly group and an enemy group.

In the entire chapter not once is it mentioned that these groups were only the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, or Zoram.

This was a relatively early time for the book of Mormon. As we read deeper into the Book of Mormon the term will change, for example; later Nephites are not just the friendlies but the term is describes as a religious communal or a group of people who share the same belief. Even later it changes to mean a smaller group of people emerging from a larger group. As James E. Smith writes;

"The presence of such different definitions for the term Nephite ​in the text demonstrates that we cannot assume that throughout all times and places the Nephite population was only made up of literal descendants of the first Nephi or his founding group."

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Anijen]

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

Note, that even some Lamanites and Lemuelites were also called Nephites. This distinguishes that some Lamanites were friendly. Hence the next verse he simplifies to a friendly group and an enemy group.

Okay, another point; if the descendants of Laman and Lemuel went with Laman and Lemuel when the split occurred then who are these Lamanites and Lemuelites "that were not Lamanites?" Could it be a few indigenous people who were invited in by Laman or Lemuel but when the split happened they chose to go with Nephi? It doesn't say this but we know there were others and odds are out of the Millions of population in Mesoamerica they [Nephite or Lamanites] had met a few of them...

Keeping it simple.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[zerinus]

Alma 43

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

It depends on what is meant by "those descendants." It can't refer to the priests of Noah because they were destroyed by the Lamanites (Alma 25:4). I take it to mean the sides were equally divided. I could be wrong.

I am inclined to believe that the word "descendants" in verse 14 is a misprint for "dissenters". He is contrasting the Nephite dissenters with the original Lamanites. That is what he means by "their own brethren" in verse 14. By that he means that those dissenters, as distinct from the original Lamanites. The original Lamanites were already more numerous than the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla combined; whereas those dissenters were almost as numerous as the Nephites themselves. That is the point that he is making.