What Old World Domesticated Plants & Animals Did Lehi Bring?

[Uncle Dale]

The thread I was reading got closed down, but there was an

unanswered question I'm still pondering.

 

I'll break it into parts:

 

1. Did the Lehites and Mulekites bring ANYTHING to the Americas,

(besides their ships and the clothing on their backs)?

 

2. Did they bring any domesticated plants or animals -- seeds,

roots, cuttings, etc. with them?

 

3. If those Israelite migrants brought any plants or animals with

them, that were exotic (species not native to the Americas) ones,

then WHAT were they?

 

It appears that they brought Old World domesticated barley with

them, which was a field crop (and not just a native species of

wild barely, not grown in plowed fields, but gathered, like wild rice

was gathered by the American Indians).

 

I may be wrong about the barley. Perhaps they brought none

with them. Perhaps a domesticated field crop variety of barley

was already being grown by somebody (Jaredites?) before

the Lehites and Mulekites arrived.

 

That part is not so important to my questioning, as is the matter

of What is LDS Doctrine, on this subject. It's something out of

the Standard Works, so there must be some "doctrine" involved.

 

What are Mormons taught, by Church officials, about this subject?

 

UD

(If anybody wishes to know RLDS doctrine from the 1960s, I can relate that)

[The Nehor]

We know they brought some seed for crops but it is possible whatever they brought were phased out when staple crops already in the area were raised more effectively. I doubt Mesoamerica would be ideal for growing the staple corps of the Near East.

[Uncle Dale]

We know they brought some seed for crops but it is possible whatever they brought were phased out when staple crops already in the area were raised more effectively. I doubt Mesoamerica would be ideal for growing the staple corps of the Near East.

Dunno about that. Had some pretty good flour tortillas in

Tampico and Fortan de los Flores -- rather far south, but

the flour was local, from west coast farms. A little too damp

along the east coast for wheat, but azoz did well.

The spaniards brought over all sorts of plants -- some did

well and some did not.

I'm not saying that finding some small distributions of Old

World plants fossil pollen would prove there were Nephites;

but the discovery would at least demonstrate that some

such exotics made it over to the preColumbian Americas.

UD

[The Nehor]

Dunno about that. Had some pretty good flour tortillas in

Tampico and Fortan de los Flores -- rather far south, but

the flour was local, from west coast farms. A little too damp

along the east coast for wheat, but azoz did well.

The spaniards brought over all sorts of plants -- some did

well and some did not.

I'm not saying that finding some small distributions of Old

World plants fossil pollen would prove there were Nephites;

but the discovery would at least demonstrate that some

such exotics made it over to the preColumbian Americas.

UD

I agree it would be an interesting find. Makes you wish Nephi had given the Latin genus and species instead of just talking about seeds. If we go to Bountiful and find out what was growing there in about 590-570 BC we might have a better idea what was available to carry over.

[Sevenbak]

 If we go to Bountiful and find out what was growing there in about 590-570 BC we might have a better idea what was available to carry over.

It wasn't just Bountiful.  They carried seeds, grains and fruits seeds "of all kinds", when they left Jerusalem clear back in 1 Nephi 8:1.  

[The Nehor]

It wasn't just Bountiful.  They carried seeds, grains and fruits seeds "of all kinds", when they left Jerusalem clear back in 1 Nephi 8:1.

Yes, but they stopped and planted at Bountiful so presumably their crops would indicate what they grew,

[Sevenbak]

Yes, but they stopped and planted at Bountiful so presumably their crops would indicate what they grew,

Actually, the text doesn't say they planted anything at Bountiful, but only harvested meat and fruit from the wilderness which was, (ahem), bountiful.  It does say, however, that why took into the ship the seeds that they had brought with them.

[ERayR]

I agree it would be an interesting find. Makes you wish Nephi had given the Latin genus and species instead of just talking about seeds. If we go to Bountiful and find out what was growing there in about 590-570 BC we might have a better idea what was available to carry over.

 

Just a bit of what is grown in Israel today:

 

http://israelmybeloved.com/farming-agriculture/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Israel

[cinepro]

We know they brought some seed for crops but it is possible whatever they brought were phased out when staple crops already in the area were raised more effectively. I doubt Mesoamerica would be ideal for growing the staple corps of the Near East.

 

1 Nephi 18

[6] And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all go down into the ship, with our wives and our children.

 

---------------------------------------------------

[24] And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.

If you're right about their transplanted seeds not being suitable for the mesoamerican conditions, that would be a big strike against the mesoamerican theory.

Edited March 19, 2015 by cinepro

[ERayR]

 

If you're right about their transplanted seeds not being suitable for the mesoamerican conditions, that would be a big strike against the mesoamerican theory.

 

Why?

[cinepro]

Why?

 

See 1 Nephi 18:24 (quoted in my post above).

[Uncle Dale]

 

... their transplanted seeds...

 

>And it came to pass that they did grow

>exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed

>in abundance.

 

That's why I'm curious to know whether this is official LDS doctrine

or not. If it is not true doctrine, then perhaps we can say that all

the animals and plants (not to mention parasites, bacteria and virus

transplants from the Old World) shriveled up and died practically

as soon as the Lehites and Mulekites arrived.

 

And, like the Plymouth Pilgrims, those migrant Israelites had to

rely upon the local Indian tribes for their maize, squash, peppers,

beans, and thanksgiving turkey.

 

UD

(odd -- that I cannot find one shred of BoM textual evidence to that effect, tho)

[Uncle Dale]

Why?

 

Maybe because the plants Lehi was supposed to have brought with him

did so well in the new environment, that we hear about some of them

still being used centuries later.

 

The southern shore of the Great Lakes might have been OK -- but the

Mississippi River Valley and the eastern edge of the Great Plains would

have been better. Coastal southern California would have been perfect.

 

UD

(Did the Jaredite dogs survive the extinction of their masters? Or did Lehi bring some new breeds?)

Edited March 19, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[VideoGameJunkie]

What if they brought marijuana? I mean there was no word of wisdom back then and they had to feel happy some way.

[ERayR]

See 1 Nephi 18:24 (quoted in my post above).

 

I just don't see any strikes against the meso-american theory in that scripture.

[ERayR]

Maybe because the plants Lehi was supposed to have brought with him

did so well in the new environment, that we hear about some of them

still being used centuries later.

 

The southern shore of the Great Lakes might have been OK -- but the

Mississippi River Valley and the eastern edge of the Great Plains would

have been better. Coastal southern California would have been perfect.

 

UD

(Did the Jaredite dogs survive the extinction of their masters? Or did Lehi bring some new breeds?)

 

The high lands of meso-america does pretty well.

[Robert F. Smith]

We know they brought some seed for crops but it is possible whatever they brought were phased out when staple crops already in the area were raised more effectively. I doubt Mesoamerica would be ideal for growing the staple corps of the Near East.

Actually, the temperate highlands of Guatemala and Mexico are ideal for the growing of barley, wheat, and the like, and they are grown and harvested in those areas today.

[Sevenbak]

Actually, the temperate highlands of Guatemala and Mexico are ideal for the growing of barley, wheat, and the like, and they are grown and harvested in those areas today.

Yeah, but what about Neas and Sheum?  ;-)

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................   

It appears that they brought Old World domesticated barley with

them, which was a field crop (and not just a native species of

wild barely, not grown in plowed fields, but gathered, like wild rice

was gathered by the American Indians).

 

I may be wrong about the barley. Perhaps they brought none

with them. Perhaps a domesticated field crop variety of barley

was already being grown by somebody (Jaredites?) before

the Lehites and Mulekites arrived.

....................................................................   

Barley was being cultivated by the Hohokam and others in pre-Columbian times.  http://blog.fairmormon.org/2010/04/17/another-look-at-barley-in-the-book-of-mormon/ .

[Robert F. Smith]

Yeah, but what about Neas and Sheum?  ;-)

You are referring to the food plants listed in Mosiah 9:9.

 

It has been suggested that neas may have been borrowed into Zarahemla culture from a native, indigenous vocabel, perhaps along the lines of quinoa, amaranth, jocote (mombin), manioc (cassava),[1] chile, or other grains or food plants native to the Americas and unknown to Joseph Smith.

 

The same may apply to sheum, although we actually have that exact term from ancient Near Eastern Old Akkadian šeʼum “barley; grain; cereal; pine nut (pignolia); grain-measure.”[2]  To have existed in that frozen linguistic form in Nephite times, it would have to have been brought over by the Jaredites and the word passed on by survivors.  Since 1990, there has been some controversy over the proper reading of šeʼum in cuneiform.[3]

 

[1] Manioc was recently discovered at Ceren, El Salvador, to be dated 1,400 years ago to the time of a massive volcanic eruption (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070820122541.htm , and www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616133940.htm ).

[2] René Labat, Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne, rev. ed. (Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1976), 367; Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute/Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1956-2010) = CAD, “Š₂” 17/2:345-355; Koehler & Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, III:1346a; J. L. Sorenson in D. Parry, D. Peterson, and J. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 288, citing R. F. Smith, “Some ‘Neologisms’ from the Mormon Canon,” in  Conference on the Language of the Mormons, 1973 (Provo: BYU Language Research Center, 1973), 66, and Sorenson, “Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 6/1 (1994):338-339; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, I:173.

[3] John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 528.

[Sevenbak]

Good find.  Quinoa is a reasonable candidate, and quite tasty!   BTW, thanks for that link on barley.  I had no idea is was so wide spread anciently, especially in N. America.

[will227457]

 

That part is not so important to my questioning, as is the matter

of What is LDS Doctrine, on this subject. It's something out of

the Standard Works, so there must be some "doctrine" involved.

 

What are Mormons taught, by Church officials, about this subject?

 

UD

(If anybody wishes to know RLDS doctrine from the 1960s, I can relate that)

The LDS doctrine is that there is no doctrine on this subject matter. We can take the previously posted scriptures at face value or not. I do not think that you will see a sustaining vote by the church about which plants made it and which ones didn't

[Uncle Dale]

The LDS doctrine is that there is no doctrine on this subject matter. We can take the previously posted scriptures at face value or not. I do not think that you will see a sustaining vote by the church about which plants made it and which ones didn't

 

Do you mean to say that there are no contemporary CES study manuals

or class instruction manuals which cite the Lehi's seeds passages in the

Book of Mormon as being true doctrine?

 

My impression has always been, that where the Standard Works present

an historical event as being factual, that the modern Church authorities

cite that fact (now and then) and thus endorse it as doctrine.

 

However, I may be wrong in my understanding.

 

I would be happy to post on one of my web-page articles that 21st Century

Mormons do NOT accept the Lehi's seeds reference(s) as LDS doctrine.

 

UD

[ERayR]

Do you mean to say that there are no contemporary CES study manuals

or class instruction manuals which cite the Lehi's seeds passages in the

Book of Mormon as being true doctrine?

 

My impression has always been, that where the Standard Works present

an historical event as being factual, that the modern Church authorities

cite that fact (now and then) and thus endorse it as doctrine.

 

However, I may be wrong in my understanding.

 

I would be happy to post on one of my web-page articles that 21st Century

Mormons do NOT accept the Lehi's seeds reference(s) as LDS doctrine.

 

UD

 

You might note that most do not think of the local Nephite drive-in menu as important as the doctrine discussed at their tables.

[Uncle Dale]

You might note that most do not think of the local Nephite drive-in menu as important as the doctrine discussed at their tables.

 

 

No need for sarcasm, friend. I just wish to know whether or

not it is contemporary LDS doctrine.

 

Until somebody tells me otherwise, I'll add a line in my

web-page concerning that topic, that it is NOT now LDS

doctrine, (but may have once been).

 

Hopefully that will be enough to accurately document the current

teachings of the LDS General Authorities on those BoM passages.

 

Dale Broadhurst

web-host, PreMormon.com