Jacob 5 and "Others" in the Book of Mormon

[cinepro]

The topic of "others" in The Book of Mormon comes up occasionally, and it came to mind once again as we studied Jacob 5 and the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Gospel Doctrine yesterday.

As explained in the Allegory, it would appear quite clearly that there were no "others" in the New World when the Jaredites and Lehites were brought here.  Can someone explain how the Allegory can be explained otherwise?

Here are the verses that describe the Lord's reaction to seeing the triumph of the Lamanites over the Nephites:

 

Quote

 

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.

 46 And now, behold, notwithstanding all the care which we have taken of my vineyard, the trees thereof have become corrupted, that they bring forth no good fruit; and these I had hoped to preserve, to have laid up fruit thereof against the season, unto mine own self. But, behold, they have become like unto the wild olive tree, and they are of no worth but to be hewn down and cast into the fire; and it grieveth me that I should lose them.

Two things stand out.

First, if there were "others" in the New World when the Jaredites or Lehites landed, then they would have been "grafted" onto an existing tree, not planted anew in fresh ground.

Second, the Lord specifically says that this part of the vineyard (the promised land that was "choice unto me above all other parts") had been cleared of existing trees (i.e. people) before transplanting the trees of good fruit (the Lehites).  Again, if there were "others" here, then there would have been other wild olive trees in this part of the vineyard, and the new trees would have been being grafted onto them if they intermingled.

If there were "others" in the new world, how can this be a relevant allegory?

Edited April 18, 2016 by cinepro

[CV75]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If there were "others" in the new world, how can this be a relevant allegory?

I think the allegory is strictly focused on God’s covenant with Israel, so any “others” become invisible for the purposes of the allegory. This is as it should be, since any “others” that come into the covenant become as though they are a part of Israel, whether as good fruit or bad.

But to push the point a little, that which was cut down in verse 44 could have included “other” trees, and yet other “other” trees may have been deemed safe (or purposeful) to co-exist with the tended trees. I would suggest that if this were the case, the Jaredites, who had rejected their covenant, were among the "others" who were cleared for the Lehites and Mulekites to set up a covenant people.

[cdowis]

Pay careful attention to the author of this allegory.  Is this allegory taken from the brass plates?  

Edited April 18, 2016 by cdowis

[webbles]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

If there were "others" in the new world, how can this be a relevant allegory?

In Jacob 5:8, it says:

Quote

 8 And behold, saith the Lord of the vineyard, I take away many of these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will; and it mattereth not that if it so be that the root of this tree will perish, I may preserve the fruit thereof unto myself; wherefore, I will take these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will.

So, I think an argument could be made that when vs 44 said that it cut down the old tree and plant it there, it actually meant that the tree was cut to a stump and then the branches were planted/grafted into the stump.  It is interesting that vs 8 says that he is going to graft them but vs 44 says that he planted them instead.

[cinepro]

10 minutes ago, webbles said:

In Jacob 5:8, it says:

So, I think an argument could be made that when vs 44 said that it cut down the old tree and plant it there, it actually meant that the tree was cut to a stump and then the branches were planted/grafted into the stump.  It is interesting that vs 8 says that he is going to graft them but vs 44 says that he planted them instead.

You are correct that two different methods of preservation are discussed.  "Grafting" is when existing people (branches) are combined with other existing people (other trees).  The "branch" that appears to represent the Lehites is specified as being "planted" in ground that has been cleared of other other trees.  The different branches being described in v8 seem to be commonly understood as other Israelite migrations (including the 10 tribes), but not the Lehites.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

You are correct that two different methods of preservation are discussed.  "Grafting" is when existing people (branches) are combined with other existing people (other trees).  The "branch" that appears to represent the Lehites is specified as being "planted" in ground that has been cleared of other other trees.  The different branches being described in v8 seem to be commonly understood as other Israelite migrations (including the 10 tribes), but not the Lehites.

I'm pretty sure v8 is talking about all the scattered branches of Israel.  v13 and v14 are about these same branches and then v19 is when they go visit these scattered branches and we meet the Lehites in v25 while seeing all the scattered branches.

And I just noticed that not only are the Lehites planted instead of grafted, but so are all of the other scattered branches.

Quote

 21 And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: How comest thou hither to plant this tree, or this branch of the tree? For behold, it was the poorest spot in all the land of thy vineyard.

Quote

 23 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto his servant: Look hither; behold I have planted another branch of the tree also; and thou knowest that this spot of ground was poorer than the first. But, behold the tree. I have nourished it this long time, and it hath brought forth much fruit; therefore, gather it, and lay it up against the season, that I may preserve it unto mine own self.

Quote

 24 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said again unto his servant: Look hither, and behold another branch also, which I have planted; behold that I have nourished it also, and it hath brought forth fruit.

Quote

 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.

 

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

And I just noticed that not only are the Lehites planted instead of grafted, but so are all of the other scattered branches.

Plus, if we say that planting is synonymous to traveling to a new island/continent that has no other people, then that would mean the other 3 scattered branches mentioned were also put on empty islands/continents.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

You are correct that two different methods of preservation are discussed.  "Grafting" is when existing people (branches) are combined with other existing people (other trees).  The "branch" that appears to represent the Lehites is specified as being "planted" in ground that has been cleared of other other trees.  The different branches being described in v8 seem to be commonly understood as other Israelite migrations (including the 10 tribes), but not the Lehites.

Aren't you maybe interpreting that a bit loosely or maybe narrowly?? I.E. trying to apply that alloeory mainly to the Jaredites and Nephites. In the allegory by the Prophet Zenos, from the Brass Plates, and of an unknown time period, spoke of planting a tree "In a good spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard." He also spoke of planting branches in poor spots also. Alma does not describe the particular area where the Nephites were dwelling as being such a particularly choice spot.

"Alma 46:40 And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land—but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate—"

Of course, what we think of as choice may not coincide with what the Lord thinks is choice, so, maybe we should be careful as to how we interpret a prophet's words. I believe that another prophet said something about private interpretations.

Nephi in 2 Nephi 10:21-22 also tells us that God has led others away from, assumably  from among the tribes of Israel. There is too much that we don't know to be making precise interpretations of those scriptures, etc.

But, to each their own.

Glenn

[Sevenbak]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

You are correct that two different methods of preservation are discussed.  "Grafting" is when existing people (branches) are combined with other existing people (other trees).  The "branch" that appears to represent the Lehites is specified as being "planted" in ground that has been cleared of other other trees.  The different branches being described in v8 seem to be commonly understood as other Israelite migrations (including the 10 tribes), but not the Lehites.

Well said!  The Lehite branch is the only one in Zenos's entire allegory to be planted.  All the rest are grafted in, in different locations.  

 

The cool thing about this is that planting olive branches directly into the ground with no grafting into other trees is a known method of olive propagation.  It's known as truncheons.

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the allegory is strictly focused on God’s covenant with Israel, so any “others” become invisible for the purposes of the allegory. This is as it should be, since any “others” that come into the covenant become as though they are a part of Israel, whether as good fruit or bad.

 

But to push the point a little, that which was cut down in verse 44 could have included “other” trees, and yet other “other” trees may have been deemed safe (or purposeful) to co-exist with the tended trees. I would suggest that if this were the case, the Jaredites, who had rejected their covenant, were among the "others" who were cleared for the Lehites and Mulekites to set up a covenant people.

 

I agree...this explains it all...the "others" were invisible.  As Elder Cunningham said. "This makes perfect sense"

Edited April 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Sevenbak said:

Well said!  The Lehite branch is the only one in Zenos's entire allegory to be planted.  All the rest are grafted in, in different locations.  

 

The cool thing about this is that planting olive branches directly into the ground with no grafting into other trees is a known method of olive propagation.  It's known as truncheons.

You must have missed my post above.  All the other tender branches that are mentioned (there are a total of 4) were planted.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

The topic of "others" in The Book of Mormon comes up occasionally, and it came to mind once again as we studied Jacob 5 and the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Gospel Doctrine yesterday.

As explained in the Allegory, it would appear quite clearly that there were no "others" in the New World when the Jaredites and Lehites were brought here.  Can someone explain how the Allegory can be explained otherwise?

Here are the verses that describe the Lord's reaction to seeing the triumph of the Lamanites over the Nephites:

Two things stand out.

First, if there were "others" in the New World when the Jaredites or Lehites landed, then they would have been "grafted" onto an existing tree, not planted anew in fresh ground.

Second, the Lord specifically says that this part of the vineyard (the promised land that was "choice unto me above all other parts") had been cleared of existing trees (i.e. people) before transplanting the trees of good fruit (the Lehites).  Again, if there were "others" here, then there would have been other wild olive trees in this part of the vineyard, and the new trees would have been being grafted onto them if they intermingled.

If there were "others" in the new world, how can this be a relevant allegory?

The allegory is quoted from the words of Zenos from the Brass Plates, and thus is an Old World allegory, which is very broadly based so as to deal with all mankind from the beginning of the Chosen People till the End Time.  As such it deals with Israel as the OT "vine" ("vineyard" Jac 5:3) which was brought "out of Egypt" and "planted" in a land prepared for it, where it was caused "to take deep root," and in which its "boughs" and "branches" spread like those of a cedar tree (Psalm 80:8-10).  The Man or Master of the Vineyard in Jacob 5 is God (and his servants), as the planter, waterer, and grower (I Cor 3:5-9).  Such imagery is quite common in the Bible (Isa 5:1-7, 27:6, 37:31, Hos 14:5-8, Zech 8:12-13), and Zenos has another horticultural parable in Alma 32.  We also find a summary in Pseudo-Philo 28:4, in which Zenez/Kenaz says:

Quote

My father, . . commanded me, saying, 'These words you will say to the sons of Israel, ". . . And I would plant a great vineyard, and from it I would choose a plant; and I would care for it and call it by my name, and it would be mine forever . . , nevertheless my plant that was called by name did not recognize me as its planter, but it destroyed its own fruit and did not yield up its fruit to me".'

We can speculate all we want about "others" in the New World, but we at least know as an anthropological fact that there were others there when the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites arrived.  Jacob 5 has nothing to do with that.  Even Jewish scholar Baruch Levine had a hard time determining whether the ʻēreb rab in Ex 12:38 (possibly originally reduplicated *ʻarabrab “a mixed group”) and Num 11:4 referred to Israelites or others:

Quote

“it remains unclear whether reference here is to auxiliary fighting forces, or to camp followers and other non-Israelite hangers-on.”  

"“these presumably non-Israelites are blamed for incurring God’s wrath” -- Levine, Numbers 1 - 20, Anchor Bible 4 (Doubleday, 1993), 320-321

One might want to thus compare I Nephi 13:30, “the Gentiles will not utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren.”  Cf. II Nephi 29:12.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

The topic of "others" in The Book of Mormon comes up occasionally, and it came to mind once again as we studied Jacob 5 and the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Gospel Doctrine yesterday.

As explained in the Allegory, it would appear quite clearly that there were no "others" in the New World when the Jaredites and Lehites were brought here.  Can someone explain how the Allegory can be explained otherwise?

Here are the verses that describe the Lord's reaction to seeing the triumph of the Lamanites over the Nephites:

 

Two things stand out.

First, if there were "others" in the New World when the Jaredites or Lehites landed, then they would have been "grafted" onto an existing tree, not planted anew in fresh ground.

Second, the Lord specifically says that this part of the vineyard (the promised land that was "choice unto me above all other parts") had been cleared of existing trees (i.e. people) before transplanting the trees of good fruit (the Lehites).  Again, if there were "others" here, then there would have been other wild olive trees in this part of the vineyard, and the new trees would have been being grafted onto them if they intermingled.

If there were "others" in the new world, how can this be a relevant allegory?

Verse 44 indicates there were "others" in the new world. Otherwise, what was cut down? The relevant question is whether everything in the entire hemisphere was cut down or just a spot large enough to accommodate the Lehites. (Or perhaps something in between.)

The grafting metaphor, as I understand it, is meant to symbolize the Gentiles accepting the gospel and becoming the covenant people. If the Lehites were grafted in to the "other" tree we would expect that the Lehites adopted the religion of the others. That may have partially happened with the Lamanites and Mulekites, but at that point they weren't the covenant people so it wouldn't really fit the metaphor.

Later on in the chapter in the part said to represent the latter days we do see branches of the original tree grafted in to the other trees in the vineyard (and vice versa). At that point the original house of Israel appears to be adopting the religion of the others by joining the church. (I'm not sure what is represented by the "other" branches being grafted back into the original tree, though.) Maybe it represents the support received by Israel from the Gentiles?

[cdowis]

Bottom line ==>>  an allegory is an allegory, a parable is a parable is a parable.  It may not perfectly reflect reality nor even every application of the lesson.  It is crafted specifically for its audience, which is, in this case, for those who are of the House of Israel.

[thesometimesaint]

Here's what the Church says.

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

[stemelbow]

It'd be pretty hard to have an allegory transplanted to a new place and time and it fit perfectly with reality.  Indeed, I think the issue with allegory is it doesn't always fit perfectly with reality.  It is a means to demonstrate general principles. 

Besides if the Nephites then others is a necessity.  Follow Jacob's line down a few more generations and the people of Mulek are found, who also found at least one from the Jaredites.  I'd agree that the presence of others is difficult to find in the text, if that's your point, but it really doesn't matter because if the Nephites existed there had to be others, no matter if the Nephite record mentioned others or not. 

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

Verse 44 indicates there were "others" in the new world. Otherwise, what was cut down? The relevant question is whether everything in the entire hemisphere was cut down or just a spot large enough to accommodate the Lehites. (Or perhaps something in between.)

From just a plain reading of the BoM, it seems the Jaredites were obviously in the area and were cut down. To insist that the promise land was the entire continents of N and S America doesn't seem to follow from the text anywhere. 

Quote

The grafting metaphor, as I understand it, is meant to symbolize the Gentiles accepting the gospel and becoming the covenant people. If the Lehites were grafted in to the "other" tree we would expect that the Lehites adopted the religion of the others. That may have partially happened with the Lamanites and Mulekites, but at that point they weren't the covenant people so it wouldn't really fit the metaphor.

Later on in the chapter in the part said to represent the latter days we do see branches of the original tree grafted in to the other trees in the vineyard (and vice versa). At that point the original house of Israel appears to be adopting the religion of the others by joining the church. (I'm not sure what is represented by the "other" branches being grafted back into the original tree, though.) Maybe it represents the support received by Israel from the Gentiles?

Who says the Mulekites weren't "covenant people?" They were sent by the Lord weren't they? 

The "other" branches being grafted back in may represent the return of the "lost" tribes to their promised land, and to the Lord.

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

From just a plain reading of the BoM, it seems the Jaredites were obviously in the area and were cut down. To insist that the promise land was the entire continents of N and S America doesn't seem to follow from the text anywhere. 

Who says the Mulekites weren't "covenant people?" They were sent by the Lord weren't they? 

The "other" branches being grafted back in may represent the return of the "lost" tribes to their promised land, and to the Lord.

I'm not trying to claim the entire western hemisphere is the promised land. I'm simply showing how Zenos' allegory mentioning others being cut down to make way for the Lehites is actually an indication there were people there when the Lehites arrived; the OP is suggesting the allegory indicates the opposite. I'm assuming that the entire western hemisphere was inhabited by others in 600 BC, and not just by the Jaredites. I think it would be silly to remove an entire hemisphere of people to make way for a small band of people so this cutting down would have been a limited one in my view. This means there would still be plenty of others there when the Lehites arrived.

As far as the Mulekites being covenant people, what I mean is that they didn't appear to be practicing the Law of Moses when the Nephites encountered them but may have, at least partially, adopted the religion of the people already there. The reason I mentioned this was to address the OP which suggested that the branches being planted wouldn't have made sense if there were others there to graft on to. My counter to that idea is that grafting is a process that the lord of the vineyard intentionally carries out. A tree going wild is something the tree "chooses" to do. The lord of the vineyard wasn't trying to get his covenant people to turn wild, so grafting them into a wild tree in the allegory wouldn't have made sense.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I'm not trying to claim the entire western hemisphere is the promised land. I'm simply showing how Zenos' allegory mentioning others being cut down to make way for the Lehites is actually an indication there were people there when the Lehites arrived; the OP is suggesting the allegory indicates the opposite. I'm assuming that the entire western hemisphere was inhabited by others in 600 BC, and not just by the Jaredites. I think it would be silly to remove an entire hemisphere of people to make way for a small band of people so this cutting down would have been a limited one in my view. This means there would still be plenty of others there when the Lehites arrived.

We agree here 100%.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Here's what the Church says.

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

The Church is not a person and says nothing, unless you buy into that classic fallacy.  The essay on DNA is a summary composed by scholars, and I am not at all sure why you cite it here.  Perhaps you could explain why you cite it in this thread.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'm not trying to claim the entire western hemisphere is the promised land. I'm simply showing how Zenos' allegory mentioning others being cut down to make way for the Lehites is actually an indication there were people there when the Lehites arrived; the OP is suggesting the allegory indicates the opposite. I'm assuming that the entire western hemisphere was inhabited by others in 600 BC, and not just by the Jaredites. I think it would be silly to remove an entire hemisphere of people to make way for a small band of people so this cutting down would have been a limited one in my view. This means there would still be plenty of others there when the Lehites arrived.

As far as the Mulekites being covenant people, what I mean is that they didn't appear to be practicing the Law of Moses when the Nephites encountered them but may have, at least partially, adopted the religion of the people already there. The reason I mentioned this was to address the OP which suggested that the branches being planted wouldn't have made sense if there were others there to graft on to. My counter to that idea is that grafting is a process that the lord of the vineyard intentionally carries out. A tree going wild is something the tree "chooses" to do. The lord of the vineyard wasn't trying to get his covenant people to turn wild, so grafting them into a wild tree in the allegory wouldn't have made sense.

Jacob 5 does not have narrow, hemispheric application.  It is worldwide in scope, and was written by an ancient Israelite prophet.  The allegory is well-known in ancient Israel, and is used by many prophets.

[rodheadlee]

On 4/18/2016 at 11:47 AM, cinepro said:

The topic of "others" in The Book of Mormon comes up occasionally, and it came to mind once again as we studied Jacob 5 and the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Gospel Doctrine yesterday.

As explained in the Allegory, it would appear quite clearly that there were no "others" in the New World when the Jaredites and Lehites were brought here.  Can someone explain how the Allegory can be explained otherwise?

Here are the verses that describe the Lord's reaction to seeing the triumph of the Lamanites over the Nephites:

 

Two things stand out.

First, if there were "others" in the New World when the Jaredites or Lehites landed, then they would have been "grafted" onto an existing tree, not planted anew in fresh ground.

Second, the Lord specifically says that this part of the vineyard (the promised land that was "choice unto me above all other parts") had been cleared of existing trees (i.e. people) before transplanting the trees of good fruit (the Lehites).  Again, if there were "others" here, then there would have been other wild olive trees in this part of the vineyard, and the new trees would have been being grafted onto them if they intermingled.

If there were "others" in the new world, how can this be a relevant allegory?

I think you need to back up and read the whole enchilada again, The Vineyard is the whole world and it begins with the birth of the nation of Israel (Jacob who became Israel ) and goes until the Second Coming. Many branches were planted, grafted or whatever all over the world in places like Ireland, Europe, India, Malaysia, Ethiopia, the Americas etc. Have you not studied the Lost Ten Tribes? You could start with the legend of Tea Tephi. or not. http://asis.com/users/stag/jerrytea.html The faithless always assume a gotchya. This should not surprise me.

[PeterPear]

Approx 600 B.C. The Jaredites are destroyed:

33 And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.

122 B.C.

Mosiah Chapter 21

Limhi’s people are smitten and defeated by the Lamanites—Limhi’s people meet Ammon and are converted—They tell Ammon of the twenty-four Jaredite plates. About 122–121 B.C.

600 minus 122 = 478 Years that Ether's plates were hid OUT IN THE OPEN. 

There were no "OTHERS" !!!

[Anijen]

9 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Approx 600 B.C. The Jaredites are destroyed:

33 And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.

122 B.C.

Mosiah Chapter 21

Limhi’s people are smitten and defeated by the Lamanites—Limhi’s people meet Ammon and are converted—They tell Ammon of the twenty-four Jaredite plates. About 122–121 B.C.

600 minus 122 = 478 Years that Ether's plates were hid OUT IN THE OPEN.  There were no "OTHERS" !!

Emphasis mine.

Wow, you rely on scripture to make a certain point, yet the very same scripture verses you quote, well, er, um, they don't make your point.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Approx 600 B.C. The Jaredites are destroyed:

33 And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.

122 B.C.

Mosiah Chapter 21

Limhi’s people are smitten and defeated by the Lamanites—Limhi’s people meet Ammon and are converted—They tell Ammon of the twenty-four Jaredite plates. About 122–121 B.C.

600 minus 122 = 478 Years that Ether's plates were hid OUT IN THE OPEN. 

There were no "OTHERS" !!!

Ether 15:33 does not say that the records were placed out in the open.  It says that they were "hid."

The Mulekites came out of the Levant soon after 586 BC.  The final wars of the Jaredites may have occurred as early as the 6th century BC, but some scholars place them as late as the second century BC -- shortly before the records were discovered.  The Book of Mormon does not provide a specific Jaredite chronology.