So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[ksfisher]

Yes, though I think I would add to this. There were no Nephites until there was a community that looked to Nephi as its leader. There were no Nephites in the Old World. There were no Nephites while Lehi was alive. Until the word Nephite defined a community, there was a single family. So if Mormon tells the story of the Nephites, he necessarily tells the story of the community, not the family

 

The Nephites as a community makes sense.  That does bring  up the question of why in Alma 8:20 Amulek identifies himself to Alma as "a Nephite."  Would there be any need for Amulek to identify himself as such to another Nephite?  Is there any reason to assume that Alma would not know that Amulek was a Nephite?

[Kevin Christensen]

I have a question. 

 

I'm not sure when the Bering land bridge theory was first proposed but I understand that as early as the late 16th Century (Fray Joes de Acosta) it was considered by various proponents of the biblical timeline to be a reasonable explanation of how the Americas were populated post-flood, in the Days of Peleg (even though Peleg appears to be a reference to sailing, but that's another story).

 

Early Mormons didn't have a need for the land bridge in their religious history, considering that it was generally assumed that the inhabitants of the Americas were the Lamanite remnants, so I don't think it made much of a blip on the LDS radar.

 

Then genomic testing came on the scene around 1985 and eventually became a practical tool for establishing Native American origins.

 

My question: Were Book of Mormon scholars seriously discussing the presence of Others before the DNA results were made available, or is it a discussion that arose as a direct result of that data?

For a history of the idea, which goes back to Joseph Smith in the Times and Seasons, and LDS authors in the 1920s, see Matt Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=10

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[tagriffy]

These questions work if you begin from the assumption that a modern writer wrote the text. Assuming that the text is (or could be) modern allows for all kind of speculation about why it isn't better than it is--particularly in the things we notice.

However, if we begin with the evidence that does suggest historicity, we have a different question. It isn't why aren't we satisfied, but why does something we care about not appear to be of interest to the writers?

The two perspectives yield different answers.In the one case, the "obvious" missing others condemns the text because of something we think it should have said. In the other, the implicit presence of the others makes it "obvious" that the text was written by people to whom that situation was normal and of no particular interest for the purposes of the text.

 

As with so many historical issues associated with the Book of Mormon, focusing on one issue as that thing that defines its historicity ignores the weight of the cumulative evidence. The weight of the cumulative evidence is sufficient that it suggests that some of the questions asked about historicity are simply the wrong ones--reflecting our interests but not those of the writers.

 

 

The problem of something we care about not being of interest to the writers is not a problem of historicity vs. modernity. It is a problem with all texts. Note that a lot of fanfiction is precisely about filling in blanks that interested the reader but was of no apparent interest to the original author. There are always going to be things texts don't say and ways of responding to those silences. It isn't one's assumptions about historicity that makes Nephi's failure to mention other humans in the land curious. What makes the omission curious is that he had a natural opportunity to mention them when he discusses what the Lehite party discovered as they journeyed into the land (1 Nephi 18:25). In that context, the omission is a glaring one. How we respond to that omission will obviously be influenced by one's stance on historicity, but the omission itself is a real hole.

 

I agree with you that focusing on an issue we think the text should have said and making it a criterion of historicity is a misguided approach. The lack of (explicit) mentions of others (if they existed) is one of them. At the very best, the omission of others is second-tier evidence. More likely, we're talking about third-, fourth-, even fifth-tier evidence. Something that is worth mentioning at all only because it adds to the picture, but doesn't in itself prove anything.

 

Look at it this way. Suppose for the moment I am correct that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention "others" because there were no "others" to be mentioned. What would that actually say about historicity? Not much. If the Book of Mormon peoples developed in enough isolation, contacts with any "others" wouldn't be significant enough to be worth mentioning. The land really was empty because there were sufficient barriers--natural or otherwise--that both prevented "others" from getting there first and rendering contacts insignificant. Such a hypothesis would have its own problems, but it wouldn't be the first time in human history that's ever happened and such a view will find a lot of support in the Book of Mormon--starting with Lehi's prophecies about the land.

 

 

the "obvious" missing others condemns the text

 

You mean "condemns" only with regard to historicity, correct? I wanted to say something about whether the missing others condemns the outside the historicity issue, but decided to focus on the issue at hand.

[Brant Gardner]

What makes the omission curious is that he had a natural opportunity to mention them when he discusses what the Lehite party discovered as they journeyed into the land (1 Nephi 18:25).

Which, of course, presumes that the reasons he included that information align with our assumption that it must have been for purposes of reporting. That is the problem with the hypothesis that Nephi should have done something. It assumes that we know what Nephi should have done. As I said, it is a modern question.

If there was a Nephi, then we need to understand why he didn't put an explicit reference to others in the text.

If there were no Nephi, then it has nothing to do with a Nephi and everything to do with Joseph bumbling through a con.

If we look at history as a backdrop the the text, then there is no question. There were people here (pretty much everywhere someone might survive the climate/ecosystem). If we combine a real Nephi and a real place, the question about the missing others is only a literary one.

[Brant Gardner]

The Nephites as a community makes sense.  That does bring  up the question of why in Alma 8:20 Amulek identifies himself to Alma as "a Nephite."  Would there be any need for Amulek to identify himself as such to another Nephite?  Is there any reason to assume that Alma would not know that Amulek was a Nephite?

Nephite (at that time) was a political designation that indicated an allegiance to a hegemony centered in Zarahemla. Ammonihah was pretty far removed from the hegemony--perhaps only with a little connection. Their religions ties had shifted to the order of the Nehors and they actively denied any authority that Alma might have had over them. The designation that "I am a Nephi" was not genealogical, but political--stating a combination of political, social, and religious affiliation.

[Hagoth]

For a history of the idea, which goes back to Joseph Smith in the Times and Seasons, and LDS authors in the 1920s, see Matt Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=10

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

 

Thank you Kevin, that's exactly what I was looking for.

 

I like this quote from the 1927 Improvement Era: "If America was occupied by any race of people—pre-Jaredites, we may call them—information concerning them must be gathered, not from the Book of Mormon, but from geological strata, or from archaeological remains extant. Are there in this country any Indians that are not descendants of these first Hebrew settlers? That is a question for the scientist to answer."

 

That was a very prescient observation.

[ksfisher]

Nephite (at that time) was a political designation that indicated an allegiance to a hegemony centered in Zarahemla. Ammonihah was pretty far removed from the hegemony--perhaps only with a little connection. Their religions ties had shifted to the order of the Nehors and they actively denied any authority that Alma might have had over them. The designation that "I am a Nephi" was not genealogical, but political--stating a combination of political, social, and religious affiliation.

 

With the above in mind, could Ammonihah then be seen as a city of "others?"

[tagriffy]

My question: Were Book of Mormon scholars seriously discussing the presence of Others before the DNA results were made available, or is it a discussion that arose as a direct result of that data? 

 

What Kevin said. The idea had been proposed and discussed for quite some time before DNA testing became available. The idea was already starting to gain some traction around the time genomic testing became available (Sorenson's Ancient American Setting was published in 1985). The discussion didn't arise as a result of DNA testing, though it is certainly possible DNA testing accelerated the acceptance of the idea among the rank-and-file.

[tagriffy]

Which, of course, presumes that the reasons he included that information align with our assumption that it must have been for purposes of reporting. That is the problem with the hypothesis that Nephi should have done something. It assumes that we know what Nephi should have done. As I said, it is a modern question.

If there was a Nephi, then we need to understand why he didn't put an explicit reference to others in the text.

If there were no Nephi, then it has nothing to do with a Nephi and everything to do with Joseph bumbling through a con.

If we look at history as a backdrop the the text, then there is no question. There were people here (pretty much everywhere someone might survive the climate/ecosystem). If we combine a real Nephi and a real place, the question about the missing others is only a literary one.

 

I agree the question about the missing others is a literary one--whether our author is Nephi or Joseph Smith. Mark what I am saying here. I'm not saying Nephi should have done something; I am saying that it is curious that he did not. You seem to be with me on the "it's curious" part. It isn't that the omission isn't curious, it's that we need to understand why others aren't explicitly referred to. Again, I agree that we need to understand why there isn't an explicit reference to others in the text--whether our author is Nephi or Joseph Smith. [FTR, though, if our author is Joseph, the omission wasn't because he was bumbling through a con.] So let's deal with this as literary question that needs to be understood. We might well have to part company and go separate ways later on, but now is not that time.

 

So we have 1 Nephi 18:25, "And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper."

 

It certainly reads like a report, but you are correct we shouldn't presume the announcement is there for the purpose of reporting. However, there are indications in the text that reporting what the party found was the author's purpose here. Moreover, the report serves a purpose. Later on, we're going to be informed "we did observe to keep the judgements, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses" (2 Nephi 5:10). Animal sacrifices will surely be part of keeping the commandments "in all things" (cf. 1 Nephi 5:9; 7:22). Then we are told the people "began to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind" (2 Nephi 5:11).

 

So, where did the animals come from? They apparently didn't come with the Lehites on the ship. The text is keen to note the party gathered seeds and took them on the ship (1 Nephi 18:6), and indeed one of the first things they when they land is plant them (1 Nephi 18:24). But mention of animals is curiously absent. Contrast Ether 6:4, where animals are specifically mentioned as part of the Jaredites' cargo. The party could offer burnt offerings until their journey began in earnest, but thereafter they are dependent on hunting to obtain meat. The story of Nephi breaking his bow simply makes no sense if it were supposed they took animals with them on the journey. While there is a possible caveat to be noted in 1 Nephi 18:6 (does "loading" include bringing animals?), the basic picture of the text does not include the party bringing animals with them across the sea.

 

So, whether our author is Nephi or Joseph Smith, the notice in 1 Nephi 18:25 is important because it covers what might otherwise be a notable plot hole. Animals and ore are mentioned because they will become important later on, and this is the most natural place to include the notice.

[Bobbieaware]

I agree the question about the missing others is a literary one--whether our author is Nephi or Joseph Smith. Mark what I am saying here. I'm not saying Nephi should have done something; I am saying that it is curious that he did not. You seem to be with me on the "it's curious" part. It isn't that the omission isn't curious, it's that we need to understand why others aren't explicitly referred to. Again, I agree that we need to understand why there isn't an explicit reference to others in the text--whether our author is Nephi or Joseph Smith. [FTR, though, if our author is Joseph, the omission wasn't because he was bumbling through a con.] So let's deal with this as literary question that needs to be understood. We might well have to part company and go separate ways later on, but now is not that time.

So we have 1 Nephi 18:25, "And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper."

It certainly reads like a report, but you are correct we shouldn't presume the announcement is there for the purpose of reporting. However, there are indications in the text that reporting what the party found was the author's purpose here. Moreover, the report serves a purpose. Later on, we're going to be informed "we did observe to keep the judgements, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses" (2 Nephi 5:10). Animal sacrifices will surely be part of keeping the commandments "in all things" (cf. 1 Nephi 5:9; 7:22). Then we are told the people "began to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind" (2 Nephi 5:11).

So, where did the animals come from? They apparently didn't come with the Lehites on the ship. The text is keen to note the party gathered seeds and took them on the ship (1 Nephi 18:6), and indeed one of the first things they when they land is plant them (1 Nephi 18:24). But mention of animals is curiously absent. Contrast Ether 6:4, where animals are specifically mentioned as part of the Jaredites' cargo. The party could offer burnt offerings until their journey began in earnest, but thereafter they are dependent on hunting to obtain meat. The story of Nephi breaking his bow simply makes no sense if it were supposed they took animals with them on the journey. While there is a possible caveat to be noted in 1 Nephi 18:6 (does "loading" include bringing animals?), the basic picture of the text does not include the party bringing animals with them across the sea.

So, whether our author is Nephi or Joseph Smith, the notice in 1 Nephi 18:25 is important because it covers what might otherwise be a notable plot hole. Animals and ore are mentioned because they will become important later on, and this is the most natural place to include the notice.

Good points. I don't know if the following verses from 2 Nephi 1 have been added to this discussion for consideration, but what Lehi has to say is surely pertinent. If I understand Lehi correctly, the ancient American promised land was deliberately kept hidden from the knowledge of other nations by the Lord, and the only people who would be found in promised land at that point in time would be refugees who escaped from doomed Jerusalem -- Lehi and his family, Mulek and his people, and perhaps other refugees refugees from Jerusalem who for inexplicable reasons are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon text.

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. (2 Nephi 1)

How does this prophecy of Lehi fit into this debate?

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

"those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments"

 

How long did that actually last though?

 

Laman and Lemuel and their group never kept the commandments and Jacob is chastizing Nephi's group for being worse than the Lamanites in some ways.

 

The Mulekites didn't have any records and lost their language.  Would they not have just as easily lost a knowledge of the commandments?

Edited July 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[Bobbieaware]

"those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments"

How long did that actually last though?

Laman and Lemuel and their group never kept the commandments and Jacob is chastizing Nephi's group for being worse than the Lamanites in some ways.

The Mulekites didn't have any records and lost their language. Would they not have just as easily lost a knowledge of the commandments?

You make it sound as if once the Lamanites and the Nephites began to sin against the gospel that they fell into a state of irretrievable apostasy, never to return again to the ways of the Lord. But this is not so. As the Book of Mormon abundantly testifies, the righteousness of both the Nephites and Lamanites waxed and waned over nearly a thousand years, and it was not until the bitter end -- at the time of the ministries of Mormon and Moroni -- that the inhabitants of the promised land finally fell into a state of total apostasy, where all gospel blessings and priesthood authority were lost. Lack of fidelity to the gospel of Christ was punished, just as Lehi had often prophesied, but the church remained intact until the aforesaid bitter end: and until that bitter end there were always enough remaining righteous church members for the Lor'd's promises to Lehi to be fulfilled.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

until that bitter end there were always enough remaining righteous church members for the Lor'd's promises to Lehi to be fulfilled.

 

Where in the prophecy does it say there only has to be a few out of the entire population righteous for the promise of protection to be fulfilled?

 

There was plenty of captivity going on as well, off and on.  It was not a land of liberty for all who lived there from the beginning of the BoM to the end.

 

You make it sound as if once the Lamanites and the Nephites began to sin against the gospel that they fell into a state of irretrievable apostasy, never to return again to the ways of the Lord.

 

No, I am just saying there was apostasy off and on and there is nothing in the prophecy that states it has to be irretrivable apostasy.

 

The prophecy itself states that for those who did 'abounding' iniquity, they would not be protected, only the righteous; it does not say that the those who did iniquity would be protected along with the righteous as long as the righteous were around.

 

if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

 

Edited July 9, 2015 by calmoriah

[canard78]

This is not a question of minority or majority opinion, and you make a major error in supposing that the methods by which we understand the ancient European or Middle Eastern worlds are in any way different from the ways in which we understand ancient America.

First, I don't suppose that the methods are different. However it's clear to see that the same methods have produced a far more credible bank of evidence for other civilisations than the Nephites.

The same applies to understanding the Bible or Book of Mormon, or any other literature..  The same canons of logic and science apply to all.  Whether one is a believer already or not is also irrelevant.  As I have said repeatedly, without any evidence being presented to the contrary, there is no evidence that the LDS Church would ever tout some set of archeological evidence in favor of the Bible or Book of Mormon.  I just don't understand why this sort of suggestion is made over and over.  It just doesn't make any sense.

Except they already have. For example, Stella 5 was included in the Seminary curriculum. I mentioned that earlier in the thread, you might have missed it.

I have repeatedly cited non-Mormon scholars who speak frankly in favor of the Book of Mormon and who speak of the advantages of Mormon theology, but these are always received in silence.  If those complaining about the false absence of such opinions were well-read and well-informed simply as ordinary people, such claims would not get to first base.  A little sincerity is always welcome.

Spoken favourably of the BoM and Mormon theology? Or speak in favour of the Nephites being an actual civilisation in history? If you can point me towards the latter, I'd be interested to read those endorsements in context.

You and some others suggest that the evidence is unconvincing, but always in a non-specific and generic way, so that it is never clear just what is unconvincing.  On those rare occasions when we are given a specific problem in the text, it typically is based on a simple or complex misunderstanding of the text, or of the ancient world.  Most often, the polemicist is simply wrong based on actual information about the ancient world.

I have given an example... Sorenson's evidence for Zarahemla amounts to very little. Sorenson claims that "...the most likely site for the city of Zarahemla is at Santa Rosa on the Grijalva River some 40 miles (64 km) downstream from the Guatemalan border..." (Mormon's Codex, Chapter 23).

He goes onto illustrate the convergences between the two:

- Being a significant cultural centre

- Being in a location that works within his proposed geography (rivers/mountains etc)

Of course, having identified a viable city, it would be useful to see some actual physical evidence that supports it being a Nephite city for several centuries. He does:

At a more concrete level, a remarkable correspondence shows up at Santa Rosa in a public building of the same Phase 3b. (This was described in chapter 15.) The huge Mound S platform—243 by 262 feet (74 by 80 meters) and 20 feet (6 meters) high, considered by the excavator to have been a temple platform—was located at the site’s center. Excavation revealed that in a top stratum a gravel layer had been laid down that was subsequently covered by a plastered floor.47 The gravel on each of the two sides of the east-west medial line was of completely different types. The materials had obviously been brought from two different sources. After recapitulating Delgado’s report of the dig, Brockington continued, “I supervised that excavation and, upon noting the difference [in materials], carefully searched the gravel, finding no mixture whatever. Not only does the difference suggest two sources of materials, but it may be taken to imply [that the work was done by] two separate groups, each working on its section.”48

In addition, and corresponding in concept to the split in the ceremonial placement of the gravel, Brockington reported that the residential zone, as determined by potsherds picked up on the surface, formed two oval sectors (each extending about 1,640 by 820 feet [500 by 250 m]) divided by an extension of the central line of Mound S that separated the two kinds of gravel. Brockington saw this residential separation as reflecting two “moieties” (dual social groups found in some societies that have complementary ritual responsibilities). Dual housing areas continued into Phase 4, down just past the time of Christ, when the division was replaced by a unified residential area.

Mosiah 25:4 reports that when (around 125 BC) Mosiah2 summoned the entire population of his little kingdom to a ceremonial gathering, “all the people of Nephi were assembled together, and also all the people of Zarahemla, and they were gathered together in two bodies.”

(Mormon's Codex, ch. 23)

That's it. The entirety of Sorenson's "concrete" evidence for Zarahemla is a gravel courtyard with two types of stone and different tiers/types of housing (hardly surprising in any city). The rest is geography conjecture.

If that's the best evidence available for Zarahemla then I can see why NHM gets so much attention.

As to peer-reviewed information, it might be helpful to observe that the footnotes in the items I linked to are primarily to non-Mormon, peer reivewed books and articles.  In other words, based on the hard work of non-Mormon scholars without any axe to grind.

 

I have often encountered on this board and elsewhere the completely untenable suggestion that pro- or anti-Book of Mormon articles would ever be acceptable in non-Mormon journals.  Not in the real world . . .  Not for any substantive reason, but simply because of the apriori nature of those kinds of opinions.  Again, sincerity leads to more reasonable conclusions about what is possible.

Linking to non-Mormon content isn't what I'm asking for. Nor is a Mormon scholar being published in a non-Mormon journal. What I'm specifically asking for is non-Mormon scholars who support the idea of Nephites living in the Americas.

[tagriffy]

Good points. I don't know if the following verses from 2 Nephi 1 have been added to this discussion for consideration, but what Lehi has to say is surely pertinent. If I understand Lehi correctly, the ancient American promised land was deliberately kept hidden from the knowledge of other nations by the Lord, and the only people who would be found in promised land at that point in time would be refugees who escaped from doomed Jerusalem -- Lehi and his family, Mulek and his people, and perhaps other refugees refugees from Jerusalem who for inexplicable reasons are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon text.

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. (2 Nephi 1)

How does this prophecy of Lehi fit into this debate?

 

It's a piece, one indicator among many. How it fits into the debate is going to depend on what debate we're having. The question "Were there others in the land?" is essentially a historical one. For all intents and purposes, the answer to that question is yes. Given the external evidence we have, wherever Jared, Lehi, and Mulek landed, not only were there people there, but they'd been there for thousands of years when the Book of Mormon peoples arrived. How Lehi's prophecy fits just has to be worked out now. On that, see, among other things, Brant's work.

 

The question "Does the Book of Mormon picture others in the land?" is essentially a literary one. And it is a question where there is precious little reliable external evidence we can turn to. Authors' statements and reader responses are about the only external evidence we can look at, but both will only take us so far. They can give us clues, but not solid answers. So the only thing we have that we can rely on is the text--and even that statement is going to be laden with caveats. But at least we only need to figure out how Lehi's prophecy fits into the Book of Mormon without the additional burden of figuring out how it fits into the external world.

[Bobbieaware]

Where in the prophecy does it say there only has to be a few out of the entire population righteous for the promise of protection to be fulfilled?

There was plenty of captivity going on as well, off and on. It was not a land of liberty for all who lived there from the beginning of the BoM to the end.

No, I am just saying there was apostasy off and on and there is nothing in the prophecy that states it has to be irretrivable apostasy.

The prophecy itself states that for those who did 'abounding' iniquity, they would not be protected, only the righteous; it does not say that the those who did iniquity would be protected along with the righteous as long as the righteous were around.

When the Nephites and Mulekites arrived in the promised land, it had be swept totally clean of any of its previous inhabitants, save Coriantumr -- the very last surviving Jatedite -- who dwelt with the Mulekites for "nine moons,." In 2 Nephi 1, Lehi makes it clear the only people who would inhabit the land of promise (after Coriantumr's passing)) would be refugees who were led there by the Lord after first fleeing from doomed Jerusalem.

In the Book of Ether, Mormon makes it clear that the promises pertaining to the land of promise (that the land of promise would remain undiscovered by other nations) would remain in force as long as the people who had received the promise did not ripen in iniquity. And as we know, the Nephites did not fully ripen in iniquity until the days of Mormon and his son Moroni. Here are Mormon's words:

8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written. (Ether 2)

So the Lord's promise to the Jerusalem refugees in the American land of promise that "they shall be kept from all other nations, THAT THEY MAY POSSESS THIS LAND UNTO THEMSELVES ." would remain in effect until there was no longer a righteous remnant worthy enough to maintain the promise in the land.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Kevin Christensen]

First, I don't suppose that the methods are different. However it's clear to see that the same methods have produced a far more credible bank of evidence for other civilisations than the Nephites.

Except they already have. For example, Stella 5 was included in the Seminary curriculum. I mentioned that earlier in the thread, you might have missed it.

Spoken favourably of the BoM and Mormon theology? Or speak in favour of the Nephites being an actual civilisation in history? If you can point me towards the latter, I'd be interested to read those endorsements in context.

I have given an example... Sorenson's evidence for Zarahemla amounts to very little. Sorenson claims that "...the most likely site for the city of Zarahemla is at Santa Rosa on the Grijalva River some 40 miles (64 km) downstream from the Guatemalan border..." (Mormon's Codex, Chapter 23).

He goes onto illustrate the convergences between the two:

- Being a significant cultural centre

- Being in a location that works within his proposed geography (rivers/mountains etc)

Of course, having identified a viable city, it would be useful to see some actual physical evidence that supports it being a Nephite city for several centuries. He does:

(Mormon's Codex, ch. 23)

That's it. The entirety of Sorenson's "concrete" evidence for Zarahemla is a gravel courtyard with two types of stone and different tiers/types of housing (hardly surprising in any city). The rest is geography conjecture.

If that's the best evidence available for Zarahemla then I can see why NHM gets so much attention.

Linking to non-Mormon content isn't what I'm asking for. Nor is a Mormon scholar being published in a non-Mormon journal. What I'm specifically asking for is non-Mormon scholars who support the idea of Nephites living in the Americas.

In Ancient American Setting, Sorenson pointed out that the Book of Mormon provides over 600 passages with geographic information. He observes that these passages must interlock, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. So the oversimplification you have here for defining a candidate location leaves out the important interrelationships between the different requirements.

For instance, Zarahemla has to be north of a narrow strip of wilderness that extends from an Eastern Sea to a Western Sea. Look at a geographic map of the Western Hemisphere. How many of those can you find? Zarahemla has to be "down" in elevation from that strip, which has the headwaters of the Sidon, and on the west bank of that river which is mentioned "37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least six different geographic locations." (See Larry Poulson at http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/grijalvasidon.html )

It has to be south of the geographic feature narrow neck, south of the 100 BCE city that used cement, south of civilization that fits the requirements for Jaredites), etc.

It does no good to isolate a few requirements, to oversimplify and overlook the interlocking nature they have with other features described in the text, and which must continue in a proposed correlation.

And why do we need permission from skeptics to believe? That is why Coe is such a useful example. He's eminent, and has actually read and commented on the Book of Mormon, but he turns out to be embarressingly incompetent when it comes to our text and readings. If the 1973 Dialogue essay didn't make that clear, the PBS Interview and the Dehlin interview proves it. A similar thing happened with The New Mormon Challenge. The LDS responses over and over demonstrated that the outside experts had not taken us seriously enough to do the homework. They tried to dismiss us without fully catching up.

Do we really to go to them, hat in hand, begging for permission and approval to believe something? Why not a little self-reliance here?

Kuhn describes paradigms as providing a "group-licensed way of seeing." Why should we need to apply to another group for licence to believe if what they provide is not demonstrably better?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

When the Nephites and Mulekites arrived in the promised land, it had be swept totally clean of any of its previous inhabitants, save Coriantumr -- the very last surviving Jatedite -- who dwelt with the Mulekites for "nine moons,." In 2 Nephi 1, Lehi makes it clear the only people who would inhabit the land of promise (after Coriantumr's passing)) would be refugees who were led there by the Lord after first fleeing from doomed Jerusalem.

In the Book of Ether, Mormon makes it clear that the promises pertaining to the land of promise (that the land of promise would remain undiscovered by other nations) would remain in force as long as the people who had received the promise did not ripen in iniquity. And as we know, the Nephites did not fully ripen in iniquity until the days of Mormon and his son Moroni. Here are Mormon's words:

8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written. (Ether 2)

So the Lord's promise to the Jerusalem refugees in the American land of promise that "they shall be kept from all other nations, THAT THEY MAY POSSESS THIS LAND UNTO THEMSELVES ." would remain in effect until there was no longer a righteous remnant worthy enough to maintain the promise in the land.

Land = Western Hemisphere or a locality? In the Book of Mormon usage, the "land" often refers to a quite limited area.

And is a hamlet or village a nation?

Plus back in 1995, a guy I know wrote this:

Lehi's promise that his children would possess the land unmolested was conditional on their keeping the commandments (2 Nephi 1:9). The next verses say that "when . . . they shall dwindle in unbelief" (not "long afterwards," but "when"), the Lord "will bring other nations . . . and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another, there shall be bloodsheds" (2 Nephi 1:10-12).

Second Nephi 5:2-5 reports that soon after the death of Lehi—the passing of a generation—Nephi's brothers plotted against his own life. Nephi and those he called "his people" fled the land. Despite the report that those who initially left "were those who believed" in God (2 Nephi 5:6), such passages as 2 Nephi 32:7 and 2 Nephi 33:1-3 suggest strongly that Nephi's people had problems of their own. For example, Jacob reports on the necessity for "diligent" labor among them on the part of the prophets (Jacob 1:7) even before Jacob 2:15 describes the beginning of extreme tendencies. Prior to the departure of Nephi's people, the Lamanites had already acted in a role as "a scourge to [Nephi's people], to stir them up in remembrance of me" (2 Nephi 5:25). Although neither Nephi nor Jacob provides details, Jacob 1:10 describes Nephi as having "wielded the sword of Laban" in defense of his people. Thus we have no record of the conditions for blessing being fully kept, and significant information suggesting that the covenant curse was in effect almost from the time of the death of Lehi. That is, immediately after the death of Lehi (the passing of that generation), we see the loss of lands and scattering (2 Nephi 5:5), and smiting and bloodsheds (2 Nephi 5:25, 34, Jacob 1:10). What about the "other nations"? Alerted by the work of Sorenson and others, we have only to look with eyes that see.

Other than to assert that the Jaredites became extinct (pp. 261, 264), Kunich has never dealt with Nibley's arguments in favor of Jaredite survivors.66

What does the Book of Mormon mean by "destroyed"? The word is to be taken, as are so many other key words in the book, in its primary and original sense: "To unbuild; to separate violently into its constituent parts; to break up the structure." To destroy is to wreck the structure, not to annihilate the parts.67

Consider Kunich's requirement that the Lehites win "total domination over a host of people" (p. 262). Actually, all that plausibility requires is a population influx over time sufficient to contribute to population growth.

Kunich calls for a detailed account of the "discovery and absorption of the natives" (p. 262). A key example of Kunich's limited imagination and careless reading comes in the phrase "If the Nephite encounter [actually, it was a Mulekite encounter, see Omni 1:21] with a single Jaredite survivor, Coriantumr, was sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the sacred record . . ." (p. 264, emphasis added). Perhaps the Nephite record keepers found Coriantumr sufficiently important both because he was royalty and because he was mentioned on an engraved stone that they obtained from Zarahemla's people (Omni 1:21), and on the twenty-four plates (Ether 12-15). The Nephite record keepers found Zarahemla sufficiently important because he was descended from Zedekiah, another royal line mentioned in relation to prophecy on their own sacred records (Omni 1:14). Sorenson's article gathers considerable evidence that others were around, not all of them royalty and connected with individuals named in the scriptures, and therefore not "sufficiently important" for detailed discussion with respect to genre and narrator priorities (1 Nephi 19:6).

Add to Sorenson's recent work the following observations:

Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me [Lehi], and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries. (2 Nephi 1:5)

Notice that from the start, possession of the promised land is not just conditional, as we have seen, but also nonexclusive. Note also that there is no requirement that the "other countries" be located in the Old World.

Before explaining about the covenant for the land, Lehi reminds his children that, besides themselves, the land contains "all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" (2 Nephi 1:5). This remark comes before any reported contact with the Mulekites or the several indications of Jaredite remnants. Why does Lehi make this point about others being led to the land? He very likely knew about them. Nephi's vision of the promised land, granted before the ocean voyage, may refer to these others:

And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, even as it were in number as many as the sands of the sea. (1 Nephi 12:1)

Reading this passage as describing non-Lehite multitudes existing in the New World before the voyage makes Lehi's remarks about "other nations" (2 Nephi 1:8, 11) in relation to the covenant curse more meaningful. Lehi taught that a law cannot function without an attached punishment (2 Nephi 2:13), and if the "other nations" referred to in the promised land covenant would not arrive until Columbus's voyage, how would the covenant curse have any immediate significance? It makes sense to suppose that from the beginning Lehi knows that his people are not alone, and he wants his sons to be sobered by the fact. An immediate expectation of other nations on the part of Nephi and Lehi, possibly even interaction with small groups of natives early on (who could signify other nations without representing such), makes the whole story more consistent and meaningful.

I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. (2 Nephi 5:6; cf. 5:14)

Again, the passage can easily be understood to include native populations, friendly to the new arrivals. Because the focus of the record is deliberately exclusionary, we need to avoid setting unreasonable conditions when we confront the ambiguity inherent in references to "others" at the start of the Lehite experience in the New World.

And all those who were with me did take upon them to call themselves the people of Nephi. . . .

And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people, they must search mine other plates. (2 Nephi 5:9, 33)

I see plausible indications for mixing populations from the very beginning of the Lehite migration. Kunich's insistence on a Robinson Crusoe level of detail belongs to another genre of writing. This next passage makes more sense if we assume native populations with different cultural backgrounds.

Many of my people . . . know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

For I, Nephi have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews. (2 Nephi 25:1-2)

Sam, Zoram, Jacob, Joseph, their families, and several of the women mentioned in 2 Nephi 5:6 certainly had a predominance of experience in Jewish culture, as well as belief in and personal experience with the revelations given by Lehi and Nephi, which came in the Jewish modes. Nephi says that he has "not taught [his] children after the manner of the Jews" (verse 6), but that exclusion to his children does not restrict the implications in verse 1, which clearly refers to cultural ignorance among "many" of his people. Notice that Nephi emphasizes that he has "made mention to my children [not necessarily all his people] concerning the judgments of God . . . according to all which Isaiah hath spoken." We may have different levels of instruction. The preexistence of native populations with alternative cultural backgrounds seems to be a reasonable way to account for an ignorance of the manner of Jewish prophecy, other Jewish manners, skepticism about the gospel, and a reluctance to fully embrace Nephi's teachings. Hutchinson protests Sorenson's "adoptionist" theology (p. 11), which is necessary to reconcile some traditional understandings of the extent of promised blessings among indigenous New World peoples, but such a notion is scriptural.

As many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord. (2 Nephi 30:2)

Kunich protests that if these others were around that "Certainly . . . their religious conversion . . . [and] the religion centered nature of Nephite society" (p. 263) requires that the Book of Mormon provide an account of a mass conversion. But "Nephite" society often is only a simplified term for dealing with a complex social group, not just one extended family of palefaces that attend the same church.68 And far from securing a "mass conversion," Nephi very early refers to his "people" as being "stiffnecked" (2 Nephi 25:28), and mourns the "unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men" (2 Nephi 32:7). Such a complaint makes more sense if the people involved included locals who resisted the kind of mass conversion that Kunich views as an implausible necessity.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[Brant Gardner]

So the Lord's promise to the Jerusalem refugees in the American land of promise that "they shall be kept from all other nations, THAT THEY MAY POSSESS THIS LAND UNTO THEMSELVES ." would remain in effect until there was no longer a righteous remnant worthy enough to maintain the promise in the land.

Unfortunately, there must be some way to understand these texts other than the way you are interpreting them. Perhaps the biggest problem for the thesis is the Lamanites. They may have come from Jerusalem, but they are never (as a people) depicted as righteous--yet they were typically the ones doing the job of sweeping off the Nephites.

From at least 570 B.C. to about 200 B.C., there were Lamanites and Nephites, Mulekites, and Jaredites in the land. We don't hear of much interaction, though it is difficult to see how the Mulekite ancestors of the people in Zarahemla could have avoided the Jaredites prior to the time the arrived in Zarahemla. Since Zarahemla isn't on a coast, we can be pretty sure that Zarahemla and his people arrived later.

So for a very long time, none of these peoples were alone in the land.

Now we return to the problem of Lamanites. They were clearly another nation, and the evidence in Mosiah and Alma actually suggests that they were a larger nation than the Nephites. They certainly knew where to find the Nephites, so the idea that Nephite lands would be kept from other nations now requires some further definition. Plus we have the problem of the prophecy. It says that the people will be preserved on the land if they were righteous. That appears to have ended around A.D. 400--yet there were then and continued to be Lamanites. So there is something wrong about the prophecy if Lamanites came from Jerusalem, were never considered righteous, but were never removed.

All of that is before we even begin to look at the known history of the New World, which pretty clearly demonstrates that there was really nowhere that was inhabitable that was not inhabited (however sparsely) by Jaredite times and then surely for Lehite times.

You can insist on a very narrow reading of those verses and contradict other statements in the Book of Mormon and known human history, or you can understand that when the writers of scripture wrote, they used the concept of "land" differently that you are interpreting it.

[Bobbieaware]

Unfortunately, there must be some way to understand these texts other than the way you are interpreting them. Perhaps the biggest problem for the thesis is the Lamanites. They may have come from Jerusalem, but they are never (as a people) depicted as righteous--yet they were typically the ones doing the job of sweeping off the Nephites.From at least 570 B.C. to about 200 B.C., there were Lamanites and Nephites, Mulekites, and Jaredites in the land. We don't hear of much interaction, though it is difficult to see how the Mulekite ancestors of the people in Zarahemla could have avoided the Jaredites prior to the time the arrived in Zarahemla. Since Zarahemla isn't on a coast, we can be pretty sure that Zarahemla and his people arrived later.So for a very long time, none of these peoples were alone in the land.Now we return to the problem of Lamanites. They were clearly another nation, and the evidence in Mosiah and Alma actually suggests that they were a larger nation than the Nephites. They certainly knew where to find the Nephites, so the idea that Nephite lands would be kept from other nations now requires some further definition. Plus we have the problem of the prophecy. It says that the people will be preserved on the land if they were righteous. That appears to have ended around A.D. 400--yet there were then and continued to be Lamanites. So there is something wrong about the prophecy if Lamanites came from Jerusalem, were never considered righteous, but were never removed.All of that is before we even begin to look at the known history of the New World, which pretty clearly demonstrates that there was really nowhere that was inhabitable that was not inhabited (however sparsely) by Jaredite times and then surely for Lehite times.You can insist on a very narrow reading of those verses and contradict other statements in the Book of Mormon and known human history, or you can understand that when the writers of scripture wrote, they used the concept of "land" differently that you are interpreting it.

All the descendants of Lehi -- and in fact all the Jerusalem refugees in the promised land -- were included in promise that they would remain undiscovered by other nations and left to themselves. That promise was extended when the family of Lehi was still intact (see 2 Nephi 1). Remember, according to Mormon himself, the only way that promise of the Lord could be revoked is if the receipients of the promise fully ripened in iniquity with the wrath of the Lord fully kindled against them. When it comes to the believers in Christ of Lamanite blood, that ripening in iniquity occurred at the same time the believers of Nephite blood also ripened in iniquity. Why? because the Book of Mormon tells us that some years after the mission of the sons of Mosiah the believing Lamanites were eventually absorbed into and fully identified with the Nephites. So at the time of that full ripening in iniquity the believers of Nephite and Lamanite blood were all considered Nephites.

As for the Lamanites who remained after the total destruction of the Nephites (the combined populations of Nephite and Lamanite people united under the title of Nephites), for the most part -- except for the Nephite dissenters who may have been among them -- they did not sin against the greater light and were in the separate category of which Lehi spoke of when he prophesied that the descendants of Laman and Lemuel would not be utterly destroyed because their wickedness came about largely as a result of the wicked traditions they inherited from their fathers. Unlike the Nephites, they did not sin against the greater light, and it is only by possessing the greater light that individuals and peoples can fully ripen iniquity.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[strappinglad]

Whenever I follow these types of threads, I have to remind myself of the Hittites. We know a fair amount about them NOW , but 150 years ago the only mention of them was in the Bible. For over a dozen centuries they were an enigma Archeology had found nothing and some scholars assumed they were myth. It wasn't until the late 1800s that some hint of their existence was found . Now we know that they were quite vast in their influence and power. How long have we been searching for Nephites? And by the way, we knew all about the " others" who lived around the Hittites long before we actually found Hittites. Patience grasshopper.

[Gray]

Whenever I follow these types of threads, I have to remind myself of the Hittites. We know a fair amount about them NOW , but 150 years ago the only mention of them was in the Bible. For over a dozen centuries they were an enigma Archeology had found nothing and some scholars assumed they were myth. It wasn't until the late 1800s that some hint of their existence was found . Now we know that they were quite vast in their influence and power. How long have we been searching for Nephites? And by the way, we knew all about the " others" who lived around the Hittites long before we actually found Hittites. Patience grasshopper.

 

As a formal discipline, archaeology isn't that old. 

[Kenngo1969]

As a formal discipline, archaeology isn't that old. 

And, as strappinglad alludes to, it's even younger in the New World.

[strappinglad]

As an example of hints at civilizations hitherto unknown , here is a link to places found just in the past few years ,mostly because of new technology which allows the scanning of difficult to search areas.

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/01/searching-amazons-hidden-civilizations

[ERayR]

As an example of hints at civilizations hitherto unknown , here is a link to places found just in the past few years ,mostly because of new technology which allows the scanning of difficult to search areas.

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/01/searching-amazons-hidden-civilizations

 

How appropriate the words of Shakespeare:

 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- Hamlet (1.5.167-, Hamlet to Horatio