“Others” in the Book of Mormon, Where are They?

[Johnnie Cake]

A straight forward reading of the Book of Mormon infers an America left untouched by the hand of mankind, a land set aside by God for His chosen people the Jaredite party who first arrived in the Americas.  Following an epic final battle of certainly historic consequences, America was once again left devoid of human population with the exception of a single Jaredite survivor in preparation for the arrival of the Lehite party.

For nearly 180 years this unpopulated America perspective was the dominant viewpoint held by a majority of the membership of the church, one supported by countless conference addresses by church general authorizes and even supported in the books introduction.  This viewpoint supported by the direct reading of the Book of Mormon and the addresses of General Authorities faced little challenge until the advance of molecular science and the emergence of DNA as a tool to trace the spread of the human family out of Africa through DNA.

This new science posed a direct scientific conflict with the truth claims of the Book of Mormon and its claim of being the history of a band of Israelite people who first populated the America’s and from whom the native populations descended.

Faced with this problem, Mormon apologists began to adopt a minority viewpoint and promote it slowly into the conversations of the believing majority…that not only had the Americas been populated when these various Israelite migrations occurred but that the Book of Mormon itself, speaks of these “Others” and is in complete harmony with the scientific findings. The Mormon equivalent of the virtual rabbit out of the hat trick.

I have personally read the Book of Mormon cover to cover numerous times throughout my life and have yet to find this claimed solid evidence confirming the existence of “others”.  While I’m sure something is there, I’m of the opinion that it requires some kind of Jedi mental mind trick in order to accept it as credible. The book does not give name to these “others” other than perhaps to offer inference, innuendo, speculation or assumptive insinuations.

While I understand the need now, in light of reality, to show believers that the book has always inferred “Others” I would like to see for myself the strength of this argument…so where exactly are the “Others” claim to have always existed within the pages of the book of Mormon and how strong is this claim.  I thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

[thesometimesaint]

The Book of Mormon is a religious book largely centered on a group of people with one faith. Though some have claimed it. It never claims to be the story of everyone in the New World.

If I am reading your comments correctly the same claim can be made of the Bible.

[nosmelone]

I didn't start taking the Book of Mormon seriously until I was in my early 20's so upon my initial readings I honestly assumed there were others just due to the population sizes that would need to be been in place for the Nephite/Lamanite wars.  I have always held that train of thought since then and still do.  It wasn't until after the mission that I heard the Sherem issue in the book of Jacob.  With him coming among the Nephites and Lamanites it would seem to me that he is from outside their population.  Especially with him seeking an opportunity to speak with Jacob it seems as if Jacob had no knowledge of him until after this meeting between the two.  Another point is that the Mulekites language had become corrupted.  This seems to be something that would take place where there is a mixing with cultures.  These are the main points that I am familiar with that lead me to picture the Americas as a well populated area at the time of arrival.  But with that said I do agree that the general understanding in the church for years was that Nephi and Lehi landed in the Americas and is was devoid of population at that time other than Coriantumr.

[Kevin Christensen]

There is no such thing as a "straight-forward" reading.  You can read with an awareness of your background ideological expectations, or not.  If you are aware of the critical implications of an assumption that there was no one here, or with an awareness that that is just an assumption.  When I read with the notion that archeology says that there were people here, and contextualize with that in mind, I immediately saw all sorts of things and have published my findings.  I was not the first.  Nibley went into that in Since Cumorah.

And Matt Roper has been good at showing that there were many LDS readers who did allow for others being around, not the least of whom was Joseph Smith.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7

Sorenson and Roper:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1402&index=2

Sorenson in JBMS 1

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1378&index=2

Brant Gardner at FAIR

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites

Nibley in Since Cumorah and published serially in the Improvement Era in the Early 60s:

Quote

And just as the Book of Mormon offers no objections whatever to the free movement of whatever tribes and families choose to depart into regions beyond its ken, so it presents no obstacles to the arrival of whatever other bands may have occupied the hemisphere without its knowledge; for hundreds of years the Nephites shared the continent with the far more numerous Jaredites, of whose existence they were totally unaware.⁴ Strictly speaking, the Book of Mormon is the history of a group of sectaries preoccupied with their own religious affairs, who only notice the presence of other groups when such have reason to mingle with them or collide with them. Just as the desert tribes through whose territories Lehi’s people moved in the Old World are mentioned only casually and indirectly, though quite unmistakably (1 Nephi 17:33), so the idea of other migrations to the New World is taken so completely for granted that the story of the Mulekites is dismissed in a few verses (Omni 1:14—17). Indeed, the Lord reminds the Nephites that there are all sorts of migrations of which they know nothing, and that their history is only a small segment of the big picture (2 Nephi 10:21). There is nothing whatever in the Book of Mormon to indicate that everything that is found in the New World before Columbus must be either Nephite or Lamanite. On the contrary, when Mormon boasts, “I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi” (3 Nephi 5:20), we are given to understand that being a direct descendant of Lehi, as all true Nephites and Lamanites were, was really something special. We think of Zarahemla as a great Nephite capital and its civilization as the Nephite civilization at its peak; yet Zarahemla was not a Nephite city at all: its inhabitants called themselves Nephites, as we have seen, because their ruling family were Nephites who had immigrated from the south.

There were times when the Nephites, like the Jaredites, broke up into small bands, including robber bands and secret combinations, each fending for itself (3 Nephi 7:2—3). And when all semblance of centralized control disappeared, “and it was one complete revolution throughout all the face of the land” (Mormon 2:8), who is to say how far how many of these scattered groups went in their wanderings, with whom they fought, and with whom they joined? After the battle of Cumorah, the Lamanites, who had been joined by large numbers of Nephite defectors during the war, were well launched on a career of fierce tribal wars “among themselves” (Moroni 1:2). It would be as impossible to distinguish any one race among them as it would be to distinguish two; there may have been marked “racial” types, as there are now among the Indians (for example, the striking contrast of Navaho and Hopi), but the Book of Mormon makes it clear that those Nephites who went over to live with Lamanites soon came to look like Lamanites. An anthropologist would have been driven wild trying to detect a clear racial pattern among the survivors of Cumorah. So let us not oversimplify and take the Book of Mormon to task for naive conclusions and images that are really our own.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1113&index=10

From yours truly in Paradigms Crossed in RBBM 7/2 in 1995.

Quote

Who and where are the other nations? In An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Sorenson wrote that “Most Latter-day Saint readers have supposed that the “other nations’ were the European “Gentiles’ (1 Nephi 13:1-3) who overran the land after Columbus’s discovery, but does it make sense that the fate prophesied by Lehi would be delayed until 1,100 years after Cumorah?”⁶⁵

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....

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)

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

For starters.  Note that the generalization about LDS teaching for 180s is an inaccurate overgeneralization.  One key example, among several cited in Roper:

Quote

In the April 1929 general conference of the church, Anthony W. Ivins, who had become a counselor in the First Presidency, admonished the Saints, “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.“³²

Nor was President Ivins alone among the General Authorities in this belief. In 1937, Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve and Franklin S. Harris Jr. noted: “Three separate and distinct settlements of America are reported by the Book of Mormon. The first, the Jaredites, dates from the Tower of Babel, the other two, the Nephites and Mulekites, from the time of Zedekiah, King of Judah. There may also have been others not recorded in the Book or not known to the ancient authors.”³³

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[cdowis]

The Book of Mormon itself tells us that there were "others".  It is a matter of carefully reading what it actually says, rather than accepting the common assumptions.  

I Ne 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 a-s- s and the horse, and the goat  and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. 

I remember the "ah ha" moment when a critic laughed at this verse, about that ox in the forest.  And then I looked at the "wild" goat and the (domesticated) goat.  A "straight forward" reading of the verse made it clear that domesticated animals mean that there were "others".

Finally, the population growth of the Nephites and Lamanites did not make sense under the old assumption.  A thoughtful reading of the Book of Mormon text also makes it quite clear.  

A reasonable idea is that the large plates gave a more full account of the history of the Nephites, including details of the "others".

Edited April 6, 2016 by cdowis

[Gray]

Unrealistic population growth can be explained in various ways:

• Intermarriage with unnamed local groups
• Numerical exaggeration (common in other ancient scriptures)
• A modern author who didn't fully take into account what population numbers might sound realistic when composing the narrative

 

[thesometimesaint]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Unrealistic population growth can be explained in various ways:

• Intermarriage with unnamed local groups
• Numerical exaggeration (common in other ancient scriptures)
• A modern author who didn't fully take into account what population numbers might sound realistic when composing the narrative

 

The Book of Mormon that we have is a Reader's Digest condensation of a Reader's Digest condensation.

Edited April 6, 2016 by thesometimesaint
spelling

[rongo]

Johnnie Cake, what bearing does Jacob 5 have on your question, do you think?

It's a long chapter, so take your time and read it and think about it before answering . . .

What other way to read it is there, than Lehi's party being grafted into a wild olive tree? What other meaning could there be?

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Unrealistic population growth can be explained in various ways:

• Intermarriage with unnamed local groups

 

It is interesting that the Lamanite growth rate was higher than the Nephite, even when the latter were practicing polygamy.  I believe that the Lamanites quickly became fully assimilated with the locals, including intermarriage, while the Nephites were still following the Mosaic law by marriage only within their own group.   There were locals who were associated with the Nephites as close allies, but intermarriage was only practiced later on.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

The Book of Mormon itself tells us that there were "others".  It is a matter of carefully reading what it actually says, rather than accepting the common assumptions.  

I Ne 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 a-s- s and the horse, and the goat  and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. 

I remember the "ah ha" moment when a critic laughed at this verse, about that ox in the forest.  And then I looked at the "wild" goat and the (domesticated) goat.  A "straight forward" reading of the verse made it clear that domesticated animals mean that there were "others".

Finally, the population growth of the Nephites and Lamanites did not make sense under the old assumption.  A thoughtful reading of the Book of Mormon text also makes it quite clear.  

A reasonable idea is that the large plates gave a more full account of the history of the Nephites, including details of the "others".

I was most interested in Royal Skousen's reconstruction of the lost verses of 1 Nephi 18, which gives more detail from Nephi about what they found at the New World.  Based on his study of the original manuscripts (and some documents in possession of the RLDS), here is what we were missing:

 

 

Quote

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, and....

Holy cow! What the heck is that?!! There's like a bazillion people living in this valley. It's a huge city, and they've all got dark skin and black hair. And they're worshiping some sort of sun god or something! They're heathens! What are heathens doing in our promised land?!

Chapter 18.2

[1]And it came to pass that we did give these others beads and feathers, after which they were exceedingly friendly. And though we could not speak their language, we were able to convert many thousands of them unto Jesus Christ, whom we believest shalt come sometime in the next 600 years or so. And behold, this was the greatest miracle granted unto the children of men of all the days of the Earth. For do we not know that God destroyed the Earth in the days of Noah, and the children of Moses were sent to destroy the heathens in the Promised Land, and not to convert them, lest they should become tainted with their religion?

[2] But it wast fortunate for these people, for we Lehites were sent not to cleanse the promised land of sun-worshipping heathens, but instead to convert as many of them as possible to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and live among those others who would not convert, ruling over them when possible, preaching when we can, but never affecting them to the point that our isolated, minority religion and hebraic culture would be discernible to the people of the time of the great seer I will tell you about in my next book.

[3] And it came to pass that my brothers were able to convert many of the people to hate us, and they became their leaders, even though we spoke Hebrew, and the many thousands of natives didn't know what the heck we were saying. I guess either we taught them Hebrew, or we learned their language, I rememberest not.

[4] And it came to pass that the people were impressed with the manner in which we did work metal, and use rounded wheels, and sat upon our horses for transportation instead of eating them. But nevertheless, they did quickly forget about our sharp, durable swords, and our rounded wheels, and the usefulness of the horses, even unto the second generation.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by cinepro

[cdowis]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I was most interested in Royal Skousen's reconstruction of the lost verses of 1 Nephi 18, which gives more detail from Nephi about what they found at the New World.  Based on his study of the original manuscripts (and some documents in possession of the RLDS), here is what we were missing:

Skousen is giving us a translation from the Large Plates.  He has REALLY done his homework.

Seriously, there was some archaeologist that discovered something that was very puzzling to him.  For a couple of thousand years the inhabitants (Costa Rica, I believe) put their burial places within the village boundaries, but around 600 BCE (sound familiar?) they suddenly changed the practice to have the burials a distance OUtSIDE the village.  He discovered this by an analysis of paths and walkways.  

He could not explain how a thousand year old practice would have changed in such a short time except for an outside influence or change in religious practices.

(no longer have the link to the article)

Edited April 6, 2016 by cdowis

[cinepro]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

Johnnie Cake, what bearing does Jacob 5 have on your question, do you think?

It's a long chapter, so take your time and read it and think about it before answering . . .

What other way to read it is there, than Lehi's party being grafted into a wild olive tree? What other meaning could there be?

Just to be clear, Lehi's branch wasn't grafted.  It was "planted" by itself into good ground.

 25 And he said unto the servant: Look hither and behold the last. Behold, this have I planted in a good spot of ground; and I have nourished it this long time, and only a part of the tree hath brought forth tame fruit, and the other part of the tree hath brought forth wild fruit; behold, I have nourished this tree like unto the others.

=======================================================

 43 And behold this last, whose branch hath withered away, I did plant in a good spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard.

 44 And thou beheldest that I also cut down that which cumbered this spot of ground, that I might plant this tree in the stead thereof.

 45 And thou beheldest that a part thereof brought forth good fruit, and a part thereof brought forth wild fruit; and because I plucked not the branches thereof and cast them into the fire, behold, they have overcome the good branch that it hath withered away.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/5?lang=eng

(emphasis added)

 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

For starters.  Note that the generalization about LDS teaching for 180s is an inaccurate overgeneralization.  One key example, among several cited in Roper:

In the April 1929 general conference of the church, Anthony W. Ivins, who had become a counselor in the First Presidency, admonished the Saints, “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.“³²

Nor was President Ivins alone among the General Authorities in this belief. In 1937, Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve and Franklin S. Harris Jr. noted: “Three separate and distinct settlements of America are reported by the Book of Mormon. The first, the Jaredites, dates from the Tower of Babel, the other two, the Nephites and Mulekites, from the time of Zedekiah, King of Judah. There may also have been others not recorded in the Book or not known to the ancient authors.”³³

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I'm not sure those quotes address what we're talking about here (other pagan cultures co-existing and mingling with the Lehites).  They seem to be implying civilizations that might have existed before the Jaredites (and before Noah's flood) and after Moroni died, or lived in the land but were totally separated from the people and events of the Book of Mormon. 

Elder Holland's take in 1976 seems to be more reflective of what the Book of Mormon (and Church leaders and publications) actually teach:

 

Quote

 

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord’s solemn declaration ringing in their ears: “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.” (Ether 2:8.)

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/a-promised-land?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

And of course, Joseph Smith's description in the Wentworth letter is pretty clear about how he felt about "others":

Quote

[During Moroni's visits in 1823] I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [America] and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people...

===============================================

In this important and interesting book [The Book of Mormon] the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter?lang=eng

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

24 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Skousen is giving us a translation from the Large Plates.  He has REALLY done his homework.

Seriously, there was some archaeologist that discovered something that was very puzzling to him.  For a couple of thousand years the inhabitants (Costa Rica, I believe) put their burial places within the village boundaries, but around 600 BCE (sound familiar?) they suddenly changed the practice to have the burials a distance OUtSIDE the village.  He discovered this by an analysis of paths and walkways.  

He could not explain how a thousand year old practice would have changed in such a short time except for an outside influence or change in religious practices.

(no longer have the link to the article)

Interesting, but remember that not being able to explain something isn't evidence of anything (other than that someone isn't able to explain something).

[cdowis]

Ah, yes, an explanation is not evidence.  Now why didn't I think of that?

I see evidence like a dart game.  Each circle on the target has a certain score.  You completely miss the dart board, you get nada. At least, with a cogent, reasonable explanation, you hit the dart board.  

Otherwise, it is tiresome to continue to hear, "Joseph Smith was the author" as the only possible explanation.

Edited April 6, 2016 by cdowis

[JAHS]

Many have perhaps incorrectly assumed that the Nephites were the only people here, but Book of Mormon scholars have warned against such assumptions. For example, in 1929 Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency told Latter-day Saints said:
"We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent." (Ivins, 1929, p. 15) Ivins, Anthony W., LDS Conference Report, April 1929, p. 15.)

Two years earlier, LDS scholar Janne Sjodahl wrote that “students should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions” (Sjodahl, Janne M., An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City:Deseret News Press, 1927). 

From BH Roberts: 
“Moreover, there is the possibility that other peoples may have inhabited parts of the great continents of America, contemporaneously with the peoples spoken of by the Book of Mormon, though candor compels me to say that nothing to that effect appears in the Book of Mormon. A number of our Book of Mormon students, however, are inclined to believe that Book of Mormon peoples were restricted to much narrower limits in their habitat on the American continents, than have generally been allowed; and that they were not in South America at all.” ---(Letter to William E. Riter, February 6, 1922. Studies of the Book of Mormon, pp. 53-54.)

Now, years later, some critics would have others believe that the Book of Mormon requires that all Indians descend solely from Jewish founders, and that this is the official teaching of the Church. But it is not.
Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it say that no one else was there when the Nephites came and inhabited the land. The other inhabitants that were probably already there were not specifically mentioned because the story is not about them. The Book of Mormon is not a history about the entire land and who was on it, it is a history of a particular family. There are, however, several instances that occur in the book that would indicate that the Nephites were not the only people there. One of these occurs during the visit by Alma and his seven companions to the Zoramites. "Now the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites" (Alma 31:8). As Alma prayed about this group, he said, "O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren" (Alma 31:35). One would ask, who are those whom they considered not their "brethren." Apparently he was speaking of those who were neither Nephites, Lamanites, nor "Mulekites" since these three groups had been refered to as "brethren" in the past.
Something already mentioned, the antichrist Sherem (Jacob 7) may have been an outsider. Jacob wrote of him, "there came a man among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1). Does this mean that he was not a Nephite? Jacob further notes "that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people" (Jacob 7:4). Don't all native speakers? This would have been remarkable only if the man were not a Nephite.
At the time of Sherem's visit, the entire population of Nephites decended from Lehi could not have exceded a hundred adults. Any Nephite among such a small population would not have been a stranger. So if he was not a Nephite where did he come from?
A few years later, some of the Nephite men began desiring “many wives and concubines” (Jacob 1:15). How many women could there have been if there were no others besides the original Lehite party? 
 

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Cinpro's citation of the Wentworth Letter, if I were a professional cynic, I might suppose that he had not bothered to read Roper's essay before commenting, which makes the following interesting, and I think, essential, observation on that topic:

Quote

Does this statement discredit the idea of other people coming to the Americas because Joseph Smith only mentions two groups? Since Joseph Smith refers to the Jaredite colony as the “first settlement” of ancient America, are Latter-day Saints required to believe that no other people came to the Americas before that time? First, it is important to note that in the Wentworth letter, Joseph Smith starts with what the angel told him and then provides his own description of the Book of Mormon narrative for the press. Consequently, his words about the Jaredite and Israelite migrations do not come from the angel Moroni. In fact, this wording, for the most part, did not even originate with Joseph Smith but is essentially adapted from Orson Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet on the Book of Mormon,¹¹ as the following comparison shows. ..

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7

Indeed, Roper also points out that the Wentworth letter does not describe itself as the final authority but "In the course of the letter, he directed the reader to the contents of the Book of Mormon three different times and on the third time advised, “For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon.” In other words, Joseph Smith considered the Book of Mormon itself, rather than his letter to Wentworth, to be the authoritative word on the subject."  In my essay in RBBM 2, I'd even pointed out where the Wentworth letter is inaccurate.

And Gardner and Sorenson do point out that the area that the Nephites entered was not occupied by large civilizations at that time, but small villages and hamlets, which, an think, an honest observer would admit lack the Gosh and by Golly ooomph that you seem to want.

And the point of citing Ivins in 1929 was to show that some people had started thinking about the issues long before apologists in the 1980s and 90s.   I do remember President Benson citing a rather obvious neglect of the Book of Mormon by the Saints.  I remember Sorenson pointing out that the first serious attempt to do an comprehensive internal map of the Book of Mormon (by the Washburns), was published over 100 years after the Book of Mormon itself was published.  And I have quoted D&C 1 countless times, on the formal statement of the "authority of my servants," that when they err, it shall be made manifest" and that we have to make inquiries and seek out wisdom, and therefore should not expect that we've had everything on the shelf the whole time.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[cinepro]

51 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Something already mentioned, the antichrist Sherem (Jacob 7) may have been an outsider. Jacob wrote of him, "there came a man among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1). Does this mean that he was not a Nephite? Jacob further notes "that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people" (Jacob 7:4). Don't all native speakers? This would have been remarkable only if the man were not a Nephite.
At the time of Sherem's visit, the entire population of Nephites decended from Lehi could not have exceded a hundred adults. Any Nephite among such a small population would not have been a stranger. So if he was not a Nephite where did he come from?
A few years later, some of the Nephite men began desiring “many wives and concubines” (Jacob 1:15). How many women could there have been if there were no others besides the original Lehite party? 
 

Sorry, but you're hinging a huge implication on a turn of phrase in a book that is written in 16th century English and translated in the 1820s.  And no, it is not a given that all native speakers have "a perfect knowledge of the language of the people."  To me, that just sounds like a fancy way of saying "he talked good."

As for the population size, it's possible that this is an anachronism.  Hypothesizing "others" might help, but that doesn't mean that's what was intended.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

It is interesting that the Lamanite growth rate was higher than the Nephite, even when the latter were practicing polygamy.  I believe that the Lamanites quickly became fully assimilated with the locals, including intermarriage, while the Nephites were still following the Mosaic law by marriage only within their own group.   There were locals who were associated with the Nephites as close allies, but intermarriage was only practiced later on.

Polygyny drops birth rate, not increases it.  Still the population growth of the Lamanites is much higher so fast than just one child per mother could take into account, imo, especially when what appear to me as vicious wars were taking place.

[Johnnie Cake]

I've always wondered why LDS apologist only quote the first part of President Ivins quote....well I've read his entire address...and now I know why they only quote the first part.  Here is the entire paragraph

Quote

We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent. A thousand years had elapsed from the time the Book of Mormon closed until the discovery of America, and we know that other people came to America during that period

Kind of changes everything once you take his entire quote into account.  For the record Ivin's believed in a universal flood.  He firmly believed that any Pre-Noah inhabitants in the Americas would have been killed in the flood. And 'Others' came in after the Lamanite and Nephite civilizations.  But that America was devoid of human life when both the Jaredites and Lehites arrived and that America was inhabited ONLY by Nephites and Lamanites during their timeline occupation.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[thesometimesaint]

Non-Sequitur.

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/science.shtml#flood

[cinepro]

31 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Cinpro's citation of the Wentworth Letter, if I were a professional cynic, I might suppose that he had not bothered to read Roper's essay before commenting, which makes the following interesting, and I think, essential, observation on that topic:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7

Indeed, Roper also points out that the Wentworth letter does not describe itself as the final authority but "In the course of the letter, he directed the reader to the contents of the Book of Mormon three different times and on the third time advised, “For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon.” In other words, Joseph Smith considered the Book of Mormon itself, rather than his letter to Wentworth, to be the authoritative word on the subject."  In my essay in RBBM 2, I'd even pointed out where the Wentworth letter is inaccurate.

And Gardner and Sorenson do point out that the area that the Nephites entered was not occupied by large civilizations at that time, but small villages and hamlets, which, an think, an honest observer would admit lack the Gosh and by Golly ooomph that you seem to want.

And the point of citing Ivins in 1929 was to show that some people had started thinking about the issues long before apologists in the 1980s and 90s.   I do remember President Benson citing a rather obvious neglect of the Book of Mormon by the Saints.  I remember Sorenson pointing out that the first serious attempt to do an comprehensive internal map of the Book of Mormon (by the Washburns), was published over 100 years after the Book of Mormon itself was published.  And I have quoted D&C 1 countless times, on the formal statement of the "authority of my servants," that when they err, it shall be made manifest" and that we have to make inquiries and seek out wisdom, and therefore should not expect that we've had everything on the shelf the whole time.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Explaining why we shouldn't give credence to the Wentworth letter is different than saying it doesn't say something.  I was simply pointing out what Joseph Smith (and Elder Holland) have taught as support for the claim made in the OP, and to counter those who would present "the others" as if this interpretation is somehow obvious and accepted.  Because it isn't and it wasn't.

Edited April 6, 2016 by cinepro

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

A straight forward reading of the Book of Mormon infers an America left untouched by the hand of mankind, a land set aside by God for His chosen people the Jaredite party who first arrived in the Americas.  Following an epic final battle of certainly historic consequences, America was once again left devoid of human population with the exception of a single Jaredite survivor in preparation for the arrival of the Lehite party.

For nearly 180 years this unpopulated America perspective was the dominant viewpoint held by a majority of the membership of the church, one supported by countless conference addresses by church general authorizes and even supported in the books introduction.  This viewpoint supported by the direct reading of the Book of Mormon and the addresses of General Authorities faced little challenge until the advance of molecular science and the emergence of DNA as a tool to trace the spread of the human family out of Africa through DNA.

This new science posed a direct scientific conflict with the truth claims of the Book of Mormon and its claim of being the history of a band of Israelite people who first populated the America’s and from whom the native populations descended.

Faced with this problem, Mormon apologists began to adopt a minority viewpoint and promote it slowly into the conversations of the believing majority…that not only had the Americas been populated when these various Israelite migrations occurred but that the Book of Mormon itself, speaks of these “Others” and is in complete harmony with the scientific findings. The Mormon equivalent of the virtual rabbit out of the hat trick.

I have personally read the Book of Mormon cover to cover numerous times throughout my life and have yet to find this claimed solid evidence confirming the existence of “others”.  While I’m sure something is there, I’m of the opinion that it requires some kind of Jedi mental mind trick in order to accept it as credible. The book does not give name to these “others” other than perhaps to offer inference, innuendo, speculation or assumptive insinuations.

While I understand the need now, in light of reality, to show believers that the book has always inferred “Others” I would like to see for myself the strength of this argument…so where exactly are the “Others” claim to have always existed within the pages of the book of Mormon and how strong is this claim.  I thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Per FAIR:

Quote

Many articles have discussed the DNA issue from this perspective, including the following:

• Kevin Barney, "A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's 'Galileo Event' (Review of Thomas W. Murphy and Simon G. Southerton, "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons," Anthropology News 44/2 (February 2003): 20)," FAIR. FairMormon link
• David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site
• D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003): 38–51. off-site wiki
• Matthew Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 91–128. off-site
• Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site
• John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003): 6–23. off-site wiki  (Key source)
• John A. Tvedtnes, "Reinventing the Book of Mormon (Review of: “Reinventing Lamanite Identity,” Sunstone, March 2004, 20–25)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 91–106. off-site
• Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003): 24–35. off-site wiki  (Key source)

Of these, I think Matthew Roper's "Nephi's Neighbors" may be the most on-point.  Rather than start the discussion from scratch, may I suggest you review at least some of these materials and then come back and present your questions/concerns about them.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[theplains]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Book of Mormon is a religious book largely centered on a group of people with one faith. Though some have claimed it. It never claims to be the story of everyone in the New World.

From this speech, it appears the land was void of other nations.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/marion-g-romney_americas-fate-ultimate-destiny/

This remarkable prophecy not only explains why America was to be discovered only by those
whom God should lead here; it also foreshadows the forfeiting by Lehi’s descendants of
their inheritance and the coming of other nations.

History records that these “other nations” were introduced to this land by Columbus, of
whose coming ancient American seers prophesied. As early as 590 B.C., before Lehi made the
foregoing prophecy, his son Nephi was given to see in vision Columbus being led by the
“Spirit of God” to this promised land.

Thanks,
Jim

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Per FAIR:

Of these, I think Matthew Roper's "Nephi's Neighbors" may be the most on-point.  Rather than start the discussion from scratch, may I suggest you review at least some of these materials and then come back and present your questions/concerns about them.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

That's why I asked and yes I intend to read Roper