Who Were The Jaredites

[Freedom]

I have read a fair bit about the Olmecs and have found that their timeline does closely match those of the Jaredites even down to their mysterious disappearance. Of course, when we say Olmecs, we are really talking about an art style because so little is known of these people that it is not really possible yet to identify them as a nation state. For example, if in 4 thousand years my city was uncovered, the archaeologist would call us the Tupperwares.

It seems to me, though, that the Olmec core is too far south to be the Jaredites. I have looked around but have not found any solid arguments of where they fit with new world findings. Can anybody provide some arguments for or against the theory of the Olmecs or any other ancient cultural classifications?

[Questing Beast]

The Jaredites came into the land sailing south by the St Lawrence river, or so JS is asserted to have said on at least one occasion. He said a lot of things not compatible with each other.

 

"Jaredites" preceded the Lehites and overlapped with them chronologically by several generations, without bumping into each other physically. So I don't see how the Olmecs could have been Jaredites in a limited geography model....

[Brant Gardner]

The term Olmec is applied to a collection of features that are distributed over a geographic area at specific time periods. It is probable that Olmec never thought of themselves as a single people and that many different peoples fell under that cultural style. At that time in Mesoamerican history (and for long after) one's city was the definition of identify, not some larger concept. Of course, we use Jaredite in a similarly anachronistic style to describe what was probably multiple cities competing for dominance.

 

As for their "disappearance," it is similar to that of the Maya. They actually didn't disappear, just that particular cultural set faded and the people continued to live the same areas, but adapt to different cultural styles.

 

I would strongly urge that we not say that the Jaredites were the Olmec. That kind of correlation misunderstands what we know of the Olmec. However, saying that the Jaredites may have participated in what is identified as Olmec culture and regional history is, I believe, pretty likely.

[Brant Gardner]

"Jaredites" preceded the Lehites and overlapped with them chronologically by several generations, without bumping into each other physically. So I don't see how the Olmecs could have been Jaredites in a limited geography model....

That is actually one of the strongest features of the correlation. Although there is certainly some locations with some contact, there isn't a lot of direct contact between early Maya and late Olmec. The Book of Mormon period and best current geography (basically Sorenson's) have them in regions with no direct contact. However, there is evidence of people who were in Jaredite lands and influenced by their late culture moving into the Grijalva River valley around the time that the people of Zarahemla arrived there. There is also, around that time, contact with Maya to the southeast.

 

The geography and the timing of contacts fits the Book of Mormon extremely well.

[Darren10]

if in 4 thousand years my city was uncovered, the archaeologist would call us the Tupperwares.

It seems to me, though, that the Olmec core is too far south to be the Jaredites. I have looked around but have not found any solid arguments of where they fit with new world findings. Can anybody provide some arguments for or against the theory of the Olmecs or any other ancient cultural classifications?

 

We'd be the Blu-rays.

 

As for the setting, it does match well with Sorensen's arguments. In fact i was going to provide a map but I think it was done by Brant Gardner.

[cursor]

From Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book (on bookshelves by the first week of September 2013), by John L. Sorenson, here is Map 11 – Plausible Jaredite Lands.

 

[cinepro]

In regard to the confusion of languages it is said of the above nations, that there were “fifteen heads, or

chiefs of families, that were permitted to speak the same language.” The Book of Mormon, concerning

the same event, says: “And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord; and the Lord

had compassion on Jared, therefore he did not confound the language of Jared”—and it further states that

Jared’s brother’s language was not confounded; and they then prayed for their families and friends also,

and the Lord heard them in their behalf; and their language was not confounded. These accounts, then,

precisely agree, one of which was found in Ontario county, N. Y., and the other in Mexico.

 

Again, those nations, of families, embodied themselves together and traveled they know not where, but

at length arrived in the country of Aztalan, of the lake country of America. The Book of Mormon says,

that the brother of Jared cried unto the Lord, that he would give them another land; the Lord heard him,

and told him to go to a certain place, “and there I will meet thee and go before thee into a land which is

choice above all the land of the earth.” This it further speaks is the land of America. The coincidence is

so striking that further comment is unnecessary.—ED.

 

Times and Seasons, June 15, 1842, Vol. 3, No. 16

 

 

Much more about the Wisconsin Jaredites here:

 

http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm/ref/collection/tp/id/50196

Edited August 22, 2013 by cinepro

[Freedom]

Yes, I would agree that the term Olmec applies to art rather than politics. If you were transported from a house in Victoria British Columbia to Orlando Florida, you would have no idea where you were without looking outside. The furniture, appliances and dishes would be pretty much the same. So I suppose at this time we do not know enough about the people in these areas to draw many conclusions.

[Rob Osborn]

My personal opinion is that the Olmecs were the early Jaredites and the Maya were the later Jaredites. I believe most of the Nephite/Lamanite plunderings took place in South America.

[Freedom]

My personal opinion is that the Olmecs were the early Jaredites and the Maya were the later Jaredites. I believe most of the Nephite/Lamanite plunderings took place in South America.

The problem with this is that the Mayans were in a different location and did not appear for about 400 years after the Jaredites were destroyed.

[Rob Osborn]

The problem with this is that the Mayans were in a different location and did not appear for about 400 years after the Jaredites were destroyed.

Dont believe everything archaeologists come up with. Throw the dates aside and examine the evidence yourself.

BTW, the same science that speaks about the Maya and Olmecs are the same guys who state the BoM is fiction having no evidence to back it up. So, either the entire Mormon religion is the greatest fraud in modern times, or, scientists are pretty clueless in properly dating and putting together our history.

[cursor]

... our history?

Um ... can you kindly tell the rest of us how this might be "our history?" Thanks

Edited August 23, 2013 by cursor

[Freedom]

Dont believe everything archaeologists come up with. Throw the dates aside and examine the evidence yourself.

BTW, the same science that speaks about the Maya and Olmecs are the same guys who state the BoM is fiction having no evidence to back it up. So, either the entire Mormon religion is the greatest fraud in modern times, or, scientists are pretty clueless in properly dating and putting together our history.

It is the archaeologists who came up with the evidence that you are relying on. Your comment makes no sense. And no, these experts do not think the BoM is fiction. There are several such experts who are members of the church.

[Rob Osborn]

... our history?

The history of mankind.

[David T]

It is the archaeologists who came up with the evidence that you are relying on. Your comment makes no sense. And no, these experts do not think the BoM is fiction. There are several such experts who are members of the church.

Like, umm, See Brant Gardner above.

[Rob Osborn]

It is the archaeologists who came up with the evidence that you are relying on. Your comment makes no sense. And no, these experts do not think the BoM is fiction. There are several such experts who are members of the church.

They have voiced their "opinions" on the evidence, no more and no less. If they decide on a date its based off of methods known to be incorrect or out of place a lot of the time. For instance- I dont personally believe men lived and died on this earth longer than 7,000 years ago. So, when I hear a date of say 14,000 years ago I tjrow it right out. It also causes me to doubt all of their other dates and look into the evidence myself.

[cursor]

Hey ... seriously, what does Brant know? 

Edited August 23, 2013 by cursor

[David T]

They have voiced their "opinions" on the evidence, no more and no less. If they decide on a date its based off of methods known to be incorrect or out of place a lot of the time. For instance- I dont personally believe men lived and died on this earth longer than 7,000 years ago. So, when I hear a date of say 14,000 years ago I tjrow it right out. It also causes me to doubt all of their other dates and look into the evidence myself.

 

And this is why any sort of discussion can't go further with you. You believe what you want, contrary to any and all evidence. In fact, it appears that the more evidence there is for something, the more you laugh at it and state that the experts don't know what they're talking about. I wonder if there is anything you have in mind that could change your thoughts on these matters - because clearly evidence doesn't do that. Because you profess to believe you know more about the accuracy of the so-called evidence than the experts in each and every one of those many different fields that disagree with your dogmatic assertions.

Edited August 23, 2013 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

And this is why any sort of discussion can't go further with you. You believe what you want, contrary to any and all evidence. In fact, it appears that the more evidence there is for something, the more you laugh at it and state that the experts don't know what they're talking about. I wonder if there is anything you have in mind that could change your thoughts on these matters - because clearly evidence doesn't do that. Because you profess to believe you know more about the accuracy of the so-called evidence than the experts in each and every one of those many different fields that disagree with your dogmatic assertions.

Whoa there...

I study the evidence and make my own conclusions. My opinions dont have to align with othets and especially dont have to align with whats commonly accepted. Dont like my opinion? Then say "thats interesting" and then move on.

[cursor]

or .. responsibly challenge it.

[David T]

EDIT: Never mind. Thought better. I was out of line. Moving on.

Edited August 23, 2013 by David T

[Anijen]

...I dont personally believe men lived and died on this earth longer than 7,000 years ago. So, when I hear a date of say 14,000 years ago I tjrow it right out. It also causes me to doubt all of their other dates and look into the evidence myself.

You say it [a 14K year old date] cause you to look at the evidence itself. How do you throw out the Lasecux Cave paintings 17K years ago, the Laetoli Footprints 3.6 million years ago? It appears from your post you throw it out because its dated not because of the evidence. Emphasis mine.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Anijen

[Rob Osborn]

You say it [a 14K year old date] cause you to look at the evidence itself. How do you throw out the Lasecux Cave paintings 17K years ago, the Laetoli Footprints 3.6 million years ago? It appears from your post you throw it out because its dated not because of the evidence. Emphasis mine.

Throw the dates out, throw the dates out.

[Anijen]

    My focus and forte is New York archaeology and the Clovis, Adena, Hopewell, Mississippi Valley Traditions [people and culture]. I dabble in Mesoamerican archaeology too, but leave it to Brant and Dr. Wright, and others.

 

    I can attest there is very little evidence that will support a Book of Mormon setting in either the heartland, Great Lakes, New York, Ohio,or Nauvoo area's. In fact there is more evidence to suggest the opposite that there were no, none, zero, nada civilizations within the time frame of the Book of Mormon that match what the text of the Book of Mormons says.

[Anijen]

Throw the dates out, throw the dates out.

Why? Tell me why you would throw these dates out? Do you believe these were painted by humans and that those footsteps are footsteps of men? And they have been dated by various means and both date older than 7000 years. If you throw them out because they test over 7000 years you are not going by evidence you are going by your own personal opinion.

 

I go by facts all the time, I would rather have a fact that might go against the church's own idea over a wrong idea.