NEW BLOG ADDRESS

Hi Everyone, I have a new blog at www.bookofmormonnotes.wordpress.com where I continue Book of Mormon comments and critiques.

Book of Mormon: Brass Plates in Three Episodes

Nephi's recounting in the Book of Mormon of getting the brass plates is very interesting to me. Many say that the lesson to be learned is the degrees of relying on the Spirit and needing the Lord’s help: that we should just rely on him. I aim to show there's more to it; in fact, without the first two episodes, the third would never have happened. Also, some say that he was writing to be like Moses; others, that he was writing to be like David. I disagree with both; though what happened was similar to both of them, it was also very unique. (Great writers don't copy stories; they just copy parts of great stories, then rework them to be better and unique.)


The first episode:

**Nephi has just received direct revelation from the Lord, yet there was nothing about going back to Jerusalem to get the brass plates. Still, when the commandment came through his father, he knew it was from God. This shows a wonderful example of both personal revelation and receving revelation through others, even at the same time.

**I wonder why they "cast lots" (1 Nephi 3:11) for one person to go get the brass plates from Laban, instead of going all together. Lehi had said, "...the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should go unto the house of Laban, and seek the records, and bring them down hither into the wilderness" (1 Nephi 3:4). And Nephi had said, "I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded..." (1 Nephi 3:7).

**Laman, the oldest son and the one who should be leading the quest, has the chance, using all his worldly learning and pride, to get the brass plates. He uses the excuse of wanting to get the family genealogy to get the plates--which was ok; just didn't cut it. His abilities got him nowhere except almost dead. Was there anything he could have done to get the Spirit and get the plates? Maybe not. If successful, was Laman going to use this opportunity to help his family, or for his own glory? This attempt of his stands out as a foil to Nephi and his turn, which should have been much harder/ impossible.

**we learn that Laban is a bloodthirsty man who is quick to anger.

**it is seen that this will probably not be an easy task.


The second episode:

**we see that Nephi swears an oath to not return without the brass plates; so, either they get the plates, or Nephi has to die first.

**we understand first that Nephi didn't make them lose their riches, as they were already counted lost by Nephi. However, they were not counted lost by Laman and Lemuel before Laban took them, but only “temporarily not ours”. We must credit them with the willingness to exchange them for the plates. (This could be the origin of Laman and Lemuel’s “Nephi took our inheritance” story: saying that since Nephi had lost Laman and Lemuel’s inheritance in exchange for the plates, they should have had the plates.) Unfortunately for this reasoning, their father was still alive, and the riches were still his, and he no doubt approved of Nephi’s act, so… sorry, guys, this doesn’t count as your inheritance. No doubt this is why they were really ticked off with Nephi and Sam in the cave and beat them—they lost all their treasures and almost their lives; not really that they didn’t get the brass plates, except that then they could have gone home sooner. So why did Laman and Lemuel beat Nephi and Sam, when this attempt had the same results as when Laman tried all by himself, except that Nephi and Sam had also been in danger of dying? On the other hand, we must acknowledge that Laman had guts to go back the second time after he had been threatened with his life the first time, while the others only went once.

**we see the difference in motives between Nephi and Sam and Laman and Lemuel.

**Nephi learns:
-what Laban looks like, how he acts, his mannerisms, how he speaks;
-about Laban’s house and its layout and maybe where the treasury is and which servant is in charge of it, Laban's servants, perhaps particularly Zoram--all in preparation for the third episode.
-more about Laban's heart and how wicked a man he is.

*Nephi gets the law on his side, in preparation for the third episode.

*Laman and Lemuel got another witness from an angel about Nephi’s calling, and the reason for it. This angel also comfirms Sam’s belief in Nephi about his father’s words, and the need to leave Jerusalem in order to live.


The third episode:

**we see that Laman and Lemuel were not willing to challenge Nephi’s calling, as given moments ago by the angel. What smarted later was that the angel had told them all to go back, perhaps especially Laman and Lemuel, yet Laman and Lemuel didn’t want in. It would have actually been an easy thing for any of them to accomplish--the way was very prepared--but only Nephi had the faith to be willing to go. I don't doubt Laman and Lemuel's hearing Nephi’s recounting of the easiness of the task of getting the brass plates burned them. And then, to have this story retold to their parents and family, Ishmael's family, etc.

**this is also a testimony to the others (hearing the story) of the differences between the brothers.

**we see that Nephi is honest and guileless. He could have made up a story much greater and stupendous than that of David and Goliath, and no one would have known any better. The fact that he told it likeso, is something that many men vying as Nephi did against his brothers, would have a hard time doing.

**Laman and Lemuel had two main choices: accept that it happened as Nephi said, or not. If they accept Nephi's story, then they have to accept that God helped him. If they don't, they must accept that Nephi overpowered/ overcame Laban, when they had cowered in fear over Laban, who could "slay fifty".

**ironically, the reason Laban was drunk was probably from celebrating his "good fortune" of having increased his assets massively in one day, and with almost no effort at all. Not only does it give Nephi the perfect scenario, but it also gives Nephi a great excuse for anything he might do wrong at Laban's house--"I'm drunk". Voice a little off? forget which direction the treasury is, or where the plates are? has to tell Zoram to open the lock? --all would be apt to blame his mistakes on drunkeness. Etc.

**we get to where Nephi deliberates the killing. Had the first and second episode not happened, I believe it would have been much harder personally for Nephi to kill Laban. However, since Nephi knew, by real experience, that Laban was a(n attempted) murderer (against none other than him and his brothers--twice!), and having seen Laban’s love for the vain things of the world, and probably knowing that he had rejected what they had told him about what the Lord had told them and he had refused--all made it much easier.

**Laban had told Laman, "Thou art a robber, and I will slay thee". Laban ate his words.

**Nephi was not planning to kill Laban at all. In fact, he was shocked when the Spirit told him to do it--even when no one was around, Laban was drunk, and he was holding the bare sword. Why? Nephi was thinking the Lord would take care of Laban for them, just as he had killed the Egyptians: "Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea" (1 Nephi 4:2). "Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians" (1 Nephi 4:3). So, when the plan was different, he had to first overcome his thoughts about what he thought the Lord would do. Some people say he took a lot of time to do it--there's a reason. He just wanted the brass plates, he didn't want to kill anyone. I imagine he was thinking, "Surely there could be another way...?" Besides, I see a very peaceful, loving, forgiving man, in whom there was no desire or thought of murder nor retaliation in his mind or heart. There was never any talk about doing anything bad to Laban, even though Laban was a man of violence, both by profession and in their personal experiences, and had used his power unjustly. Nevertheless, he goes one up on Moses and slays Laban personally.

**Notice that "kill" and "murder" are not used in this. It's "shed...blood" and "slay".

**Nephi does not give a detailed law-based defense for his actions, which suggests that he saw no need for it for those reading his words, who would be able to understand it enough with what he had given.

**In addition, there is no mention of Laman, Lemuel, Zoram, or anyone else ever accusing Nephi of being a murderer--something Laman and Lemuel would surely have used against him. Thus, he exceeds Moses, who slew the enemy, but was chided by his own for it: "And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand" (Exodus 2:12). "And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?" (Exodus 2:13). "And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known" (Exodus 2:14).

**Some say that Zoram would have known something was wrong because of all the blood on Laban's clothes (the neck is the worst place for gushing blood). Though it sounds like it, the text does not say that Nephi killed Laban first, then took his garments off: "Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword" (1 Nephi 4:18). "And after I had smitten off his head with his own sword, I took the garments OF (not OFF) Laban and put them upon mine own body; yea, even every whit; and I did gird on his armor about my loins" (1 Nephi 4:19).

**Nephi doesn't just cut off Laban's head with the sword. He goes one up on David--he then puts on Laban's garments, and becomes Laban, even so much that he is mistaken by Laban's servant. In essense, all that is Laban's, is symbolically his--including, as his brothers put it, able to slay fifty, or even "tens of thousands" (1 Nephi 4:1). Compare this to 1 Samuel 18:7: "And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands." Compare this donning of the garments with David and Jonathan, in 1 Samuel 18:4: "And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."

**As David picked up a friend from the household of his enemy after slaying Goliath who helped him stay alive, Nephi, after slaying Laban, picks up a loyal friend, Zoram, who also covenants with him, and by so doing saves his life. Zoram, like Johathon, chose the Lord's choice. Remember, had Lehi's group been found, Nephi would have been the first to go. When Jonathan makes the covenant, he gives his garments and sword to David; Zoram comes to make the covenant with Nephi because Nephi donned Laban's garments and sword.

**Some wonder why Zoram didn't know that Nephi was an imposter. Was Zoram a new guy, or just a lowly servant who didn't know Laban well, or was Nephi changed by the power of God, like Brigham Young seeming to be Joseph Smith? I don't believe any of these are the case. Zoram had the keys to the treasury, and knew where the brass plates were--we can conclude he was hardly a lowly servant. This was also in Laban's house--not a military installation, for example. Also, Zoram carried the conversation--something a lowly servant or new person would never dare do, especially with a mighty warrior like Laban. I think the previous episode had helped enough that Nephi could do it, and he clearly says that he imitated Laban; anything "out of normal" could be blamed on drunkeness.

**Laban's sword--like Goliath's sword--is kept as a token. In fact, it is the sword the Nephite king wields in battle. It is the symbol of the turning point in leadership, where the mantle was called by the Lord to be given to Nephi, and unchallenged by Laman and Lemuel--those who were in the position to do so.
Knowing about Zoram, and that he was a free man and not a servant or bonded to them, also gives us a nice insight to the text about whether there could have been others in the group not mentioned.

**When the brothers came home victorious with the brass plates, particular mention is made of Sariah rejoicing, in 1 Nephi 5:7-8: "And when we had returned to the tent of my father, behold their joy was full, and my mother was comforted." "And she spake, saying: Now I know of a surety that the Lord hath commanded my husband to flee into the wilderness; yea, and I also know of a surety that the Lord hath protected my sons, and delivered them out of the hands of Laban, and given them power whereby they could accomplish the thing which the Lord hath commanded them. And after this manner of language did she speak." (The next project, after the sacrifice and rejoicing, was the getting of women for wives.) Compare this to Exodus 15:20-21: "And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances." "And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea." And also what's recorded in 1 Samuel 18:6-7: "And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick." "And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands."

All in all, Nephi does sound like Moses and David, but is it because he purposefully and forcefully wanted to, or because circumstances brought it into being? While I admit the crafting of the story, and the realization of an exodus likely similar to the earlier one led by Moses, Nephi is not Moses, and is not David; he is Nephi, and perhaps he writes his story to stand above them.

What about Preemptive Strike?

What does the Book of Mormon have to say about this doctrine of warfare, or any other similar doctrine? Is it ok to go into another country and attack it, especially if they haven't done anything yet? What if they have done something, and are retreating? What if they are harboring terrorists? What if they attacked you before in the past?

We start with the Nephites & Lamanites defending themselves against the Gadianton robbers, who have already sent a clear letter of intent with a clear plan to attack:
3 Nephi 3:20-21--[The Nephites & Lamanites say, "Let's] fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands. But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands...but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands."

3 Nephi 4:13--"...Gidgiddoni commanded that his armies should pursue them as far as the borders of the wilderness..." This was the border/ demarcation between the Gadianton robbers and the Nephites/ Lamanites.

3 Nephi 4:15--"...the armies of the Nephites did return again to the place of their security..." Also, there are still robbers--the Nephites did not chase them down in their own territories.

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

Here's Captain Moroni. Notice that he threatens the Lamanites that the Nephites will defend themselves, and then follow the Lamanites into their lands. However, remember that this is BECAUSE the land the Lamanites live in at this time originally was the land of the Nephites; notice the words "withdraw, return, your own lands, receive, retain, defend":
Alma 54:6--"...except ye repent and withdraw your armies into your own lands, or the land of your possessions, which is the land of Nephi.
Alma 54:7--"...except ye repent and withdraw your murderous purposes, and return with your armies to your own lands."
...
Alma 54:9--"...we are prepared to receive you..."
Alma 54:10--"...our armies shall come upon you except ye withdraw...for we will retain our cities and our lands."
...
Alma 54:12--"...and I will come against you, and I will follow you even into your own land, which is the land of our first inheritance..."
Alma 54:13--"...ye have sought to murder us, and we have only sought to defend ourselves. But behold, if ye seek to destroy us more we will seek to destroy you; yea, and we will seek our land, the land of our first inheritance."
...
Alma 62:38--"...Moroni did slay them with a great slaughter; and they did drive them out of the land..."

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

Here's what Mormon has to say about it:
Mormon 3:4--"...the king of the Lamanites sent an epistle unto me, which gave unto me to know that they were preparing to come again to battle against us."
...
Mormon 3:6--"And there we did place our armies, that we might stop the armies of the Lamanites, that they might not get possession of any of our lands..."
Mormon 3:7--"...the Lamanites did come down ...to battle against us; ...we did beat them, insomuch that they did return to their own lands again."
Mormon 3:8--"...they did come down again to battle..."
Mormon 3:9--"...they began to boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies."
Mormon 3:10--"...they would go up to battle against their enemies..."
...
Mormon 3:14--"And when they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren..."
...
Mormon 3:16--"And it came to pass that I utterly refused to go up against mine enemies; and I did even as the Lord had commanded me..."
...
Mormon 4:1--"...the Nephites did go up with their armies to battle against the Lamanites..."
...
Mormon 4:4--"...And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them."

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

Notice this story, too:
Helaman 2:5--"...therefore Kishkumen sought to destroy Helaman."
Helaman 2:6--"...one of the servants of Helaman...having obtained...a knowledge of those plans which had been laid by this band to destroy Helaman--
Helaman 2:7--"Kishkumen made known unto him the object of his desire, desiring that he would conduct him to the judgment-seat that he might murder Helaman."
Helaman 2:8--"And when the servant of Helaman had known all the heart of Kishkumen, and how that it was his object to murder, and also that it was the object of all those who belonged to his band to murder, and to rob, and to gain power, (and this was their secret plan, and their combination) the servant of Helaman said unto Kishkumen: Let us go forth unto the judgment-seat.
Helaman 2:9--"...the servant of Helaman, as they were going forth unto the judgment-seat, did stab Kishkumen even to the heart, that he fell dead without a groan. And he ran and told Helaman all the things which he had seen, and heard, and done."
Helaman 2:10--"...Helaman did send forth to take this band of robbers and secret murderers, that they might be executed according to the law."

So, there was absolute conviction of organizational and personal capital offense intent, in addition to previous capital offenses; when the servant started out to fulfill one more intent, and Kishkumen followed and was happy and prepared to commit it, he was killed; then, the chief judge wanted to take the rest of them alive to try them according to the law.

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

The story of Alma and Amlici:
Alma 2:2--"...Amlici had...drawn away much people after him...they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people."
Alma 2:3
"Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people."
...
Alma 2:5
"And it came to pass that the people assembled themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies, having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another."
...
Alma 2:7
"And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people."
....
Alma 2:10
"Now when Amlici was made king over them he commanded them that they should take up arms against their brethren; and this he did that he might subject them to him."
...
Alma 2:12
"Therefore the people of the Nephites were aware of the intent of the Amlicites, and therefore they did prepare to meet them..."
Alma 2:13
"And thus they were prepared to meet the Amlicites at the time of their coming."
...
Alma 2:15
And it came to pass that the Amlicites came upon the hill Amnihu, which was east of the river Sidon, which ran by the land of Zarahemla, and there they began to make war with the Nephites.
...
Alma 2:18
the Nephites...slew the Amlicites with great slaughter, that they began to flee before them.
Alma 2:19
"And it came to pass that the Nephites did pursue the Amlicites all that day, and did slay them with much slaughter..."
Alma 2:20
"And it came to pass that when Alma could pursue the Amlicites no longer...the Nephites did pitch their tents for the night."
Alma 2:21
"And Alma sent spies to follow the remnant of the Amlicites, that he might know of their plans and their plots, whereby he might guard himself against them, that he might preserve his people from being destroyed."
...
Alma 2:24
"we saw a numerous host of the Lamanites; and behold, the Amlicites have joined them;"
Alma 2:25
"And they are upon our brethren in that land; and they are fleeing before them with their flocks, and their wives, and their children, towards our city; and except we make haste they obtain possession of our city, and our fathers, and our wives, and our children be slain."
...
Alma 2:35
"And it came to pass that when they had all crossed the river Sidon that the Lamanites and the Amlicites began to flee before them..."
Alma 2:36
"And they fled before the Nephites towards the wilderness which was west and north, away beyond the borders of the land; and the Nephites did pursue them with their might, and did slay them."
Alma 2:37
"Yea, they were met on every hand, and slain and driven, until they were scattered on the west, and on the north, until they had reached the wilderness, which was called Hermounts; and it was that part of the wilderness which was infested by wild and ravenous beasts."

So, Amlici wants to be king; the matter is settled by vote, after everyone's voice is heard; he and his people are in the land of the Nephites when they rebel; nevertheless, the Nephites still wait for him to attack them; then they pursue and kill them, as they are still in the land; Alma sends spies to help defend against them; the Amlicites join the Lamanites and attack again; the Nephites defend and pursue and kill them because they are still in their land, or later in a neutral empty land--not back in their own land.

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

Captain Moroni, the rebel Zoramites, living in Nephite land, and the Lamanites:
Alma 43:4
"...the Zoramites became Lamanites; ...the ...Nephites saw that the Lamanites were coming upon them; therefore they made preparations for war; yea, they gathered together their armies in the land of Jershon."
Alma 43:5
"And it came to pass that the Lamanites came with their thousands; and they came into the land of Antionum, which is the land of the Zoramites..."
...
Alma 43:15
"And it came to pass as the armies of the Lamanites had gathered together in the land of Antionum (DS NOTE: this is Nephite land!), behold, the armies of the Nephites were prepared to meet them in the land of Jershon." (DS NOTE: they didn't go attack them even when they had trespassed into Nephite land.)
Alma 43:18
"And it came to pass that he met the Lamanites in the borders of Jershon..."

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

The story of Captain Moroni and Amalickiah and his men, who had already rebelled while still in Nephite land:
Alma 46:28
"And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words he went forth, and also sent forth in all the parts of the land where there were dissensions, and gathered together all the people who were desirous to maintain their liberty, to stand against Amalickiah and those who had dissented, who were called Amalickiahites."
Alma 46:29
"...when Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amalickiahites--and he also saw that his people were doubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken--therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the land of Nephi..."
Alma 46:30
"...Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.
Alma 46:31
"...he took his army and marched out with his tents into the wilderness, to cut off the course of Amalickiah in the wilderness."
...
Alma 46:33
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah fled with a small number of his men, and the remainder were delivered up into the hands of Moroni and were taken back into the land of Zarahemla."
Alma 46:34
"Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them."
Alma 46:35
"And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom."
Alma 46:36
"And it came to pass also, that he caused the title of liberty to be hoisted upon every tower which was in all the land, which was possessed by the Nephites; and thus Moroni planted the standard of liberty among the Nephites."

In verse 31, we see that Moroni wants to capture the rebel Nephite while he is still in Nephite land; once he crosses over into Lamanite land, however, Moroni does not pursue him, even though he knows Amalickiah's evil intent. The captured Amalickiahite rebels need to make a covenenant of freedom or die; this is because they had cut themselves fully off by openly rebelling, and needed the covenant to come back, or else remain in their state of open rebellion. Then, the title of liberty is "hoisted upon every tower"

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

Another thing to see:
D&C 93

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

I believe that the above seven examples from the Book of Mormon support the conclusion that "pre-emptive strike", especially in the enemy's own land, is not of God. While I was able to find other similar examples, I was not able to find one example to the contrary.

Book of Mormon: More Interesting Constructions in Helaman, Joshua

**I found one more in the Book of Mormon, in the Book of Helaman, talking about "famine" and "smitten":

Helaman 11:5
And so it was done, according to the words of Nephi. And there was a great famine upon the land, among all the people of Nephi. And thus in the seventy and fourth year the famine did continue, and the work of destruction did cease by the sword but became sore by famine.

Helaman 11:6
And this work of destruction did also continue in the seventy and fifth year. For the earth was smitten that it was dry, and did not yield forth grain in the season of grain; and the whole earth was smitten, even among the Lamanites as well as among the Nephites, so that they were smitten that they did perish by thousands in the more wicked parts of the land.



**I also found one in the Bible:

Joshua 1:6,7,9--the "be strong and of a good courage" part.

Interesting Constructions in Alma 51, Helaman 5

I found this interesting--

Does anyone have any insight, perhaps in Hebrew, as to a structure that uses a phrase three times in very near proximity?:


Alma 50:1
AND now it came to pass that Moroni did not stop making preparations for war, or to defend his people against the Lamanites; for he caused that his armies should commence in the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of the judges, that they should commence in digging up heaps of earth round about all the cities, throughout all the land which was possessed by the Nephites.

-=-=-=-=-=

Helaman 5:23
And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi were encircled about as if by fire, even insomuch that they durst not lay their hands upon them for fear lest they should be burned. Nevertheless, Nephi and Lehi were not burned; and they were as standing in the midst of fire and were not burned.

Helaman 5:24
And when they saw that they were encircled about with a pillar of fire, and that it burned them not, their hearts did take courage.

How Much for Your God?

Alma 11:22
...Zeezrom said unto him: Behold, here are six onties of silver, and all these will I give thee if thou wilt deny the existence of a Supreme Being.
...
Alma 11:24
Believest thou that there is no God? I say unto you, Nay, thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest that lucre more than him.

How much for your God?

Amulek tells Zeezrom, you know there is a God, but you love "THAT filthy lucre" more than God--in other words, you love those six onties of silver you're holding in your hand--which, by the way, you earned dishonestly--more than you love God.

He put a price on God for Zeezrom.

How much would you sell God for? What price tag would you put on him? If that were you instead of Zeezrom, what would you be holding in your hand?

Hypothecially speaking: If the house were on fire, and God and your ___ (car, computer, CD selection, retirment funds, stock investments, awards and plaques, children, spouse) were inside and in trouble, who would you save? Would you save God first, and then whatever else? How long would it take you to decide, and act?

While it might seem ludicrous, we can do that through our choices of worship and priority.

Orem-Provo Solution

Having spent at least a short time in both Orem and Provo, I can't help but think of them each time I read Alma 50, about the cities of Lehi and Morianton, which bordered each other and "warmly contended" over who owned what land (though it's quite possible that there was more). The answer comes in Alma 50:36--

Alma 50:36
And thus were the people of Morianton brought back. And upon their covenanting to keep the peace they were restored to the land of Morianton, and a union took place between them and the people of Lehi; and they were also restored to their lands.

Look at that--years of fighting, and the answer's been staring them in the face since the beginning of the fighting. Wow, the Book of Mormon's amazing. :)

"...nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book"

The other night, I understood (for myself) the last part of this quote from Jospeh Smith about the Book of Mormon:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

especially in light of the Bible. In some ways the Book of Mormon doesn't do as well as the Bible, such as in the life of Christ and his actions and words.

But then I thought about this:
How many instances in the Bible do you see one seeking revelation? And an answer from God, clearly connected to it? And the need for the Spirit?

I have found very few, relatively speaking. I see lots of one or the other, but very few connected, together. Yet, from Lehi's first vision to Moroni's questions and answers, the Book of Mormon is full of instances where a person seeks God, and finds Him; seeks His answers, and gets them; has a problem, and God helps with the solution--and the processes and connections are shown, and connected.

If we were to have personal revelation, through seeking God by prayer and having the Spirit, and reading and understanding the scriptures, wouldn't we be "nearer to God"? And which book, even of all holy books, teaches, supports, and urges this more than any other? The Book of Mormon.

9/11 and the Book of Mormon: A Study of Amalickiah

9/11 and the Book of Mormon : A Study of Amalickiah



Dedicated to those true patriots of 911, and the victims of the secret combination

In memory of Joe Vialls


Version 2.2

by grego


What?!? "9/11" (the September 11 "terrorist" attacks in the USA) is in the Book of Mormon? You're mad! crazy! looney! unpatriotic! unholy! When I first saw 911, I felt something wasn't right. The more I listened to what the US government and the mainstream press said about it, the more I felt it wasn't right. Getting on the internet and reading more about it confirmed my feelings and thoughts to me. Yet, every LDS I talked to about it--especially soon afterwards--was very adamant that not only was I absolutely wrong that 9/11 was anything but the official version (whichever of the many it was at the time), but that I was a "__" (fill in the blank with your choice of a raucous, blood-thinning insult or cussword) for believing so. I got messages from others like, "we really worry about you and are praying for you"; "If it were a lie or different than the official version, the prophets would tell us"; "Everyone knows the Muslims did it because we are followers of Christ".

So, I wondered, what about the Book of Mormon? Does it offer any specific insight, with all its commentary on politics, dissensions, wars, etc.? Boy, does it ever! All over, in fact. However, reading about Amalickiah was of particular interest, because of the detail and the understanding it gave me as to how one man pulls off a complete coup d'etat that's never discovered, and that results in the deaths of thousands of people. Accepting the Book of Mormon to be true not only in the principles it teaches but in its historicity, members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are bound to admit that, at least, the unofficial story of 911 is very possible.

So what are the official and unofficial versions of 911? The official version says that Muslim terrorists, under a plan by Osama bin Laden, hijacked four planes with boxcutters and flew two of them into the twin World Trade Center towers and one into the Pentagon, and blew up another plane while it was in the air. The unofficial version is that a conspiracy of people, with at least some of them in the US government, committed the act or hired others to do so, cast the blame on Muslims and Osama bin Laden, covered up the conspiracy in every way possible, got Americans all whipped up against "terrorists" and "al Qaeda" and the Muslims, and sent forces to the Middle East on the pretext of numerous lies.

Notwithstanding the official version is so full of holes it can't hold an inch of water, many people still have numerous objections about accepting any unofficial version in its stead. But by looking at Amalickiah, we will see how valid this is.

What, then, are some of the objections to the unofficial version of 911, and what insight might Amalickiah provide?

*Objection:
It's just impossible that any Americans, growing up in a Christian country, could be so evil to plan to kill their own people--it had to be the Muslims.

Answer:
"And now it came to pass that after Helaman and his brethren had appointed priests and teachers over the churches that there arose a dissension among them, and they would not give heed to the words of Helaman and his brethren;" (Alma 45:23)
"But they grew proud, being lifted up in their hearts, because of their exceedingly great riches; therefore they grew rich in their own eyes..." (Alma 45:24)
"AND it came to pass that as many as would not hearken to the words of Helaman and his brethren were gathered together against their brethren." (Alma 46:1)
"And now behold, they were exceedingly wroth, insomuch that they were determined to slay them." (Alma 46:2)
"Now the leader of those who were wroth against their brethren was a large and a strong man; and his name was Amalickiah." (Alma 46:3)
"And Amalickiah was desirous to be a king; and those people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king..." (Alma 46:4)
"And they had been led by the flatteries of Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people." (Alma 46:5)
"Thus they were led away by Amalickiah to dissensions, notwithstanding the preaching of Helaman and his brethren, yea, notwithstanding their exceedingly great care over the church, for they were high priests over the church." (Alma 46:6)
"And there were many in the church who believed in the flattering words of Amalickiah, therefore they dissented even from the church..." (Alma 46:7)
"Yea, and we also see the great wickedness one very wicked man can cause to take place among the children of men." (Alma 46:8)
"Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous' sake." (Alma 46:9)
...
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah fled with a small number of his men, and the remainder were delivered up into the hands of Moroni and were taken back into the land of Zarahemla." (Alma 46:33)

Amalickiah:
--is a Nephite
--is a member of the true church of Jesus Christ!
--leaves the church because of pride
--is lifted up in his heart because of his riches
--is mad and wanted to kill the true Christians
--wants to be king, but not in the "right way"
--is a very evil man who also taught others to do evil
--is a very able man: big and strong, ability to flatter, convincing in his lies, etc.
--is willing to sacrifice anyone--Nephite or Lamanite, follower or enemy--to fulfill his goal of being king
--has the ability to plan far in advance
--has the ability to carry out his plan with extreme boldness and cover it up
--is able to keep key information from men that are very high up
--is aided by key followers for key parts of the plan
Now, what if there were not just one Amalickiah, but a few Amalickiahs, or even a group?


*Objection:
The official version of 9/11 already took intelligent and immense planning of the perpetrators; the unofficial version takes even more, so it's harder to believe.

Answer:
Well, even though I find it much easier to believe that high-placed men on the inside with some accomplices would have the ability to plan out 9/11 than an outcast living with other outcasts in a cave half the world away, here's what the Book of Mormon says:
"Now behold, this was the desire of Amalickiah; for he being a very subtle man to do evil therefore he laid the plan in his heart to dethrone the king of the Lamanites" (Alma 47:4). Remember, this is at the beginning of the account--we see that Amalickiah laid out the whole plan ahead of time.


*Objection:
How is it possible that no one big involved in the 9/11 plan or conspiracy blew the whistle?

Answer:
Well, even though that might not be true, it still wouldn't go anywhere. But in direct response to the objection, there are many possible reasons:
1. Persuading someone based on personal gain, even to the point of corrupting their previous high values.
Lehonti is a great example of this. First, he was the leader and king of Lamanites who did not want to fight, and his people were "fixed in their minds with a determined resolution that they would not be subjected to go against the Nephites" (Alma 47:6). Then, by the persuasions of Amalickiah, he meets with him, and agrees to become part of Amalickiah's plan. What does he gain from it? Well, he becomes king over all the Lamanite forces.

2. Not everyone need know.
In fact, though Lehonti became a top accomplice to Amalickiah's plan, he didn't know what the real plan was. He was misled by Amalickiah. The Lamanite king who had swent him to do his bidding didn't know Amalickiah's plan, either. And there's no mention of anyone in the army, other than Amalikciah's men, knowing or suspecting anything. They were misled with information about who killed the king, then joined in the cause by chasing the king's guards. The few that needed to know, knew--everyone else was in the dark, misled, etc.

3. Kill them off when they're no longer useful, or as part of the plan.
"and that [Amalickiah] would deliver [his army] up into Lehonti's hands, if [Lehonti] would make him a second leader over the whole army" (Alma 47:13).
...
"Now it was the custom among the Lamanites, if their chief leader was killed, to appoint the second leader to be their chief leader" (Alma 47:17).
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah caused that one of his servants should administer poison by degrees to Lehonti, that he died" (Alma 47:18).
"Now, when Lehonti was dead, the Lamanites appointed Amalickiah to be their leader and their chief commander" (Alma 47:19).

And with the king:
"And the king came out to meet him with his guards, for he supposed that Amalickiah had fulfilled his commands, and that Amalickiah had gathered together so great an army to go against the Nephites to battle.
"But behold, as the king came out to meet him Amalickiah caused that his servants should go forth to meet the king. And they went and bowed themselves before the king, as if to reverence him because of his greatness.
"And it came to pass that the king put forth his hand to raise them, as was the custom with the Lamanites, as a token of peace, which custom they had taken from the Nephites.
"And it came to pass that when he had raised the first from the ground, behold he stabbed the king to the heart; and he fell to the earth." (Alma 47:21-24)

5. Betray them, frame them, threaten them with death; run them out; etc.
"Now the servants of the king fled; and the servants of Amalickiah raised a cry, saying:" (Alma 47:25)
"Behold, the servants of the king have stabbed him to the heart, and he has fallen and they have fled; behold, come and see." (Alma 47:26)
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah commanded that his armies should march forth and see what had happened to the king; and when they had come to the spot, and found the king lying in his gore, Amalickiah pretended to be wroth, and said: Whosoever loved the king, let him go forth, and pursue his servants that they may be slain." (Alma 47:27)
"And it came to pass that all they who loved the king, when they heard these words, came forth and pursued after the servants of the king." (Alma 47:28)
"Now when the servants of the king saw an army pursuing after them, they were frightened again, and fled into the wilderness, and came over into the land of Zarahemla and joined the people of Ammon." (Alma 47:29)

6. Provide hostile and/ or counter-witnesses to contradict the truth:
"And now it came to pass that the queen, when she had heard that the king was slain--for Amalickiah had sent an embassy to the queen informing her that the king had been slain by his servants, that he had pursued them with his army, but it was in vain, and they had made their escape--Alma 47:32)
"Therefore, when the queen had received this message she sent unto Amalickiah, ... she also desired him that he should come in unto her; and she also desired him that he should bring witnesses with him to testify concerning the death of the king." (Alma 47:33)
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah took the same servant that slew the king, and all them who were with him, and went in unto the queen, unto the place where she sat; and they all testified unto her that the king was slain by his own servants; and they said also: They have fled; does not this testify against them? And thus they satisfied the queen concerning the death of the king." (Alma 47:34)


*Objection:
It's impossible for anyone near the top to not know what was happening.

Answer:
Maybe it's true, and maybe the truthfulness of that comment should rest on us longer and deeper. But in some cases, it's not true--we see that the Lamanite king and Amalickiah had a plan to make the Lamanites fight the Nephites. Yet, even the king didn't know how Amalickiah had changed the plan.

Alma 47:21
And the king came out to meet him with his guards, for he supposed that Amalickiah had fulfilled his commands, and that Amalickiah had gathered together so great an army to go against the Nephites to battle.


*Objection:
If the official version of 9/11 were wrong, or the unofficial version were true, we'd hear about it in the news--besides, our government would never lie to us to get us to hate and fight others.

Answer:
Hopefully! But alas, look at this mass propaganda campaign and its results:
"AND now it came to pass that, as soon as Amalickiah had obtained the kingdom he began to inspire the hearts of the Lamanites against the people of Nephi; yea, he did appoint men to speak unto the Lamanites from their towers, against the Nephites." (Alma 48:1)
"And thus he did inspire their hearts against the Nephites..." (Alma 48:2)
"Therefore he had accomplished his design, for he had hardened the hearts of the Lamanites and blinded their minds, and stirred them up to anger, insomuch that he had gathered together a numerous host to go to battle against the Nephites." (Alma 48:3)


*Objection:
But the official story of 9/11 makes sense.

Answer:
And the official story made sense to the Lamanites, too.
There are many things that shouldn't have made sense to them, if you think about it. I mean...
1. Didn't anyone know that Amalickiah was openly disobeying the king by joining forces with Lehonti and thereby committing treason (and a Nephite immigrant at that!)?
2. Didn't anyone wonder how Amalickiah's army got surrounded? Amalickiah, a great and smart warrior, should have posted guards who should have seen Lehonti's men were coming down a mountain, right before the break of day--it wasn't 2AM. Where were the guards?
3. Didn't anyone notice Amalickiah going up to the mountain that night? Didn't they wonder what he was doing there, especially after he got surrounded the next day?
4. Didn't anyone see the relationship between Amalickiah going up the hill, Amalickiah's army getting encircled, his surrendering, being placed second in command, having the first in command poisoned, and then becoming first in command?
5. Didn't anyone wonder why the king's guards would kill the king right by Amalickiah and the army, who would have been ready to execute them if they had? Wouldn't it have been easier for the guards to kill the king while the army was away? Or any other time? Didn't anyone see how too perfect a "coincidence" it was, for Amalickiah, for it to happen at that time?
6. Ok, so, the servants killed the king... But then they fled?? What were the benefits of that? Why would they do that?
7. And, where did they flee to? To the Nephites, where murderers are punished by death? And not to just the Nephites, but of all people, to the people of Ammon--pacifists who were extremely intolerant of murderers?

8. Why would all the Lamanites believe Amalickiah instead of the king's guards? Had Amalickiah proved himself a loyal, wonderful servant over the king's guards?
9. Didn't anyone wonder why Amalickiah wanted the king's servants slain on the spot instead of given a trial or anything like that?
10. Didn't anyone listen to the king's guards, or their reports, or even rumors, that must have come to them after the incident and that were certainly contrary to Amalickiah's report?
11. Didn't anyone see how the end was finally realized, and see that it was the end from the beginning?
12. Didn't anyone know about Amaliciah wanting to be king of the Nephites, and getting ready to use force to follow through with it, and how much this matched his becoming king of the Lamanites? This was major news even Lamanites could easily have known about.
13. Didn't anyone find it strange that Amalickiah started a propaganda campaign right after becoming king--a campaign that no doubt aided his point of view?
I'm sure that if someone asked (if they dared--remember, this is neither republic nor democracy, but a king ruled), there was a great answer.

What about those Americans! I mean...
1. How did the hijackers get on the planes? Where are the videos of them getting on or even heading towards the planes? Why have the only shown videos (that never really showed the hijackers) been shot down clearly as fake (due to shadows and sun positions and the time of day the videos were shot)? How did the hijackers all make it through the detectors and x-rays, etc. with boxcutters? Three or four men, dressed in red bandanas (an inappropriate color for dedicated Muslims), used boxcutters to "stab" people and keep lots of tough grown men at bay, including military personnel and karate experts on board?
2. How were cell phone calls made from planes? (When's the last time you made a cell phone call to someone from a plane? Never? You're in good company--before 9/11, no one ever had.) Why did someone in a life-threatening situation talk to a complete stranger for a while instead of calling another loved one/ relative, close friend, etc.? Why did someone identify himself to his mom using his full name (when's the last time YOU or anyone you know did that?)
3. How did the hijacked planes fly around for so long without military planes? (Believe me, anyone familiar with the US military, knows this is just impossible.)
4. Didn't anyone notice how perfectly and quickly the buildings fell? Especially with all the witnesses who heard bombs, and all the evidence that showed there was more?
5. The floated-to-the-sidewalk passport! A huge exploding fireball, and of all things that survived, a hijacker's passport!
6. DNA of a hijacker (of which at least 1/3 are still alive!) was supposedly found at the WTC crash (which was supposedly so hot it incinerated everything and everyone else--except for the passport that was just mentioned, of course).

And the list goes on and on--in fact, at least one person (Nico Haupt) has written a list (incomplete, I might add) of 500 questions of things that are impossible about 911, or don't make sense about it, or that are interesting coincidences, or pressing questions.

Now, I want to go to a quick summary and possible interpolations from the record of Alma 46-48.

46:2, 3, 4, 5, 7 Amalickiah, though he was a very wicked man, used such great speech that he flattered many church members so much that they believed him and supported him (even in opposition to the church and its leaders). He used that good old trade: "you help me, and I'll help you". And it worked for those who wanted power--who are often dangerous men. If he could get people this way, and even church members, couldn't our government find accomplices and followers for 9/11 the same way?

47:4 Amalickiah already has a plan!! Long before any of the big events happened, especially the murder of the king, and even before the first step was taken, he had a plan to overthrow the king and take the kingship for himself.

47:15 By purposefully setting up a bad situation, the people desire exactly what Amalickiah wants them to, and sets himself up as a small hero who listens to the people. Match this up to this quote of Henry Kissinger:
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

47:16 This was in complete disobedience to the king's order. But, the king wasn't there to know it!

46:33, 47:18, 22, 24-26, 34, 35 Amalickiah has a few key accomplices--his "cunning servants"--who are willing to support him in everything, even to the point of open, cold-blooded assassination of the king of the Lamanites, then lying by testifying against the king's servants.

47:16 Amalickiah sets himself up to become leader through assassination. However, he doesn't actually kill anyone himself--he gets someone else to do it. Is this one of those things that only happens long ago, far away, in the Book of Mormon?

47:26 Yes, obviously the king was murdered, which is hardly the point; but, as they say in marketing, credibility goes to the first one to state the obvious. Was Amalickiah smooth or what? He obviously understood people.
Also, once more, he was safe from blame because he didn't do it, wasn't there, and could deny any involvement. Had his servant been caught, that servant would be blamed (and then probably be let off, let escape, or betrayed to a quick death before he could say anything), the king would still be dead, and Amalickiah would still be leader of the army--and his plan would still go on. This is the way most people in high places do their dirty work.

47:27 Even though no one knew it, Amalickiah COULDN'T have been wroth--hey, this was his great plan! But he pretended to be, and by inviting those who "loved the king" to chase after the servants, he:
· allowed and encouraged (FALSE) patriotism;
· provoked a feeling of catharsis, by allowing the people to feel like they were doing something worthwhile for a good and just cause;
· found out who really loved the king and who he needed to work harder on to win over or kill off; · created a link between himself and the king in the minds of the Lamanites--a "passing of the mantle" experience;
· let everyone know his way of dealing with betrayal, etc., giving everyone an incentive to not betray him;
· made sure the king's servants had no other option than to run to the Nephites for asylum, which served a few purposes: no one could find out the truth about the assassination, and it fit in with his plans of stirring the Lamanites up to anger.

47:27 Kill the servants!! This is not even with a pretense of justice like with Osama bin Laden's "Reward--Dead or Alive" (so nothing can be told and the US official story challenged), but "Kill on the spot!" What other choice did the servants have but to flee? And what would have happened to Osama bin Laden if he had come out to challenge the story, or turned himself in?

47:29 Too perfect! The Nephites, scum to begin with, are now harboring terrorists/ assassins/ murderers/ whatever.

47:33 The queen wants witnesses! Anyone who wants witnesses should get them from both sides, not just one side. Did she question why the servants, whom she knew much better than Amalickiah and his men, killed the king and fled? Did she bother to check with the servants, at least hear their side? Was she scared to confront Amalickiah? but then, she wouldn't marry him, right? Or, did she really not care? Maybe the king paled compared to this new strange man standing before her. Hey, what's done is done, right?
After 9/11, when many people called for an investigation, look at what was set up. The 9/11 Commission was almost exactly like the embassy that went to the queen--accomplices, followers, and maybe more, of those that did it. It was not to tell the truth, but to cover it up. We also got our witnesses, but like with Amalickiah, we only got one side--the official one--and the reasoning was similar--see, Osama is gone into hiding, and we found a video, so we know he did it. And like the queen, we accepted the report as confirmation.

47:36 Amalickiah now takes advantage of the mourners and moves in to complete the conquest of the Lamanites.

48:1, 2 The first thing Amalickiah does is start a propaganda campaign against the Nepihtes. In addition to the old stories and traditions, do you think that Amalickiah might, perhaps, mention anything about the Nephites harboring international murderers (the king's servants)? Or suggesting that the Nephites corrupted and turned the servants against the king, and had the assassination planned from a while before? Or...? And, it works--now he'll go to war.

49:26 The purpose of war--to free the Lamanites? To get back the king's servants for trial? Etc., etc.? No! It's to make the Nephites slaves; to earn from their labors and lands.


The similarities of the principles and actual techniques used by the unofficial conspirators of 9/11 seem to have been lifted from the episode of Amalickiah in the Book of Mormon. The records we have on Amalickiah show that more study should be made into the unofficial story(ies) of 9/11. I condlude that it's impossible to believe in the Book of Mormon and not accept the possibility that the story of Amalickiah was acted out, only in a different characters and settings.

THE END



The pertinent scriptures for those who might not have them:

"And now it came to pass that after Helaman and his brethren had appointed priests and teachers over the churches that there arose a dissension among them, and they would not give heed to the words of Helaman and his brethren;" (Alma 45:23)
"But they grew proud, being lifted up in their hearts, because of their exceedingly great riches; therefore they grew rich in their own eyes, and would not give heed to their words, to walk uprightly before God." (Alma 45:24)
"AND it came to pass that as many as would not hearken to the words of Helaman and his brethren were gathered together against their brethren." (Alma 46:1)
"And now behold, they were exceedingly wroth, insomuch that they were determined to slay them." (Alma 46:2)
"Now the leader of those who were wroth against their brethren was a large and a strong man; and his name was Amalickiah." (Alma 46:3)
"And Amalickiah was desirous to be a king; and those people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king; and they were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land, and they were seeking for power." (Alma 46:4)
"And they had been led by the flatteries of Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people." (Alma 46:5)
"Thus they were led away by Amalickiah to dissensions, notwithstanding the preaching of Helaman and his brethren, yea, notwithstanding their exceedingly great care over the church, for they were high priests over the church." (Alma 46:6)
"And there were many in the church who believed in the flattering words of Amalickiah, therefore they dissented even from the church; and thus were the affairs of the people of Nephi exceedingly precarious and dangerous, notwithstanding their great victory which they had had over the Lamanites, and their great rejoicings which they had had because of their deliverance by the hand of the Lord." (Alma 46:7)
...
"Yea, and we also see the great wickedness one very wicked man can cause to take place among the children of men." (Alma 46:8)
"Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous' sake." (Alma 46:9)
...
"And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words he went forth, and also sent forth in all the parts of the land where there were dissensions, and gathered together all the people who were desirous to maintain their liberty, to stand against Amalickiah and those who had dissented, who were called Amalickiahites." (Alma 46:28)
"And it came to pass that when Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amalickiahites--and he also saw that his people were doubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken--therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the land of Nephi." (Alma 46:29)
"Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes." (Alma 46:30)
"Therefore Moroni thought it was expedient that he should take his armies, who had gathered themselves together, and armed themselves, and entered into a covenant to keep the peace--and it came to pass that he took his army and marched out with his tents into the wilderness, to cut off the course of Amalickiah in the wilderness." (Alma 46:31)
"And it came to pass that he did according to his desires, and marched forth into the wilderness, and headed the armies of Amalickiah." (Alma 46:32)
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah fled with a small number of his men, and the remainder were delivered up into the hands of Moroni and were taken back into the land of Zarahemla." (Alma 46:33)
...
"NOW we will return in our record to Amalickiah and those who had fled with him into the wilderness; for, behold, he had taken those who went with him, and went up in the land of Nephi among the Lamanites, and did stir up the Lamanites to anger against the people of Nephi, insomuch that the king of the Lamanites sent a proclamation throughout all his land, among all his people, that they should gather themselves together again to go to battle against the Nephites." (Alma 47:1)
"And it came to pass that when the proclamation had gone forth among them they were exceedingly afraid; yea, they feared to displease the king, and they also feared to go to battle against the Nephites lest they should lose their lives. And it came to pass that they would not, or the more part of them would not, obey the commandments of the king." (Alma 47:2)
"And now it came to pass that the king was wroth because of their disobedience; therefore he gave Amalickiah the command of that part of his army which was obedient unto his commands, and commanded him that he should go forth and compel them to arms." (Alma 47:3)
"Now behold, this was the desire of Amalickiah; for he being a very subtle man to do evil therefore he laid the plan in his heart to dethrone the king of the Lamanites." (Alma 47:4)
"And now he had got the command of those parts of the Lamanites who were in favor of the king; and he sought to gain favor of those who were not obedient; therefore he went forward to the place which was called Onidah, for thither had all the Lamanites fled; for they discovered the army coming, and, supposing that they were coming to destroy them, therefore they fled to Onidah, to the place of arms." (Alma 47:5)
"And they had appointed a man to be a king and a leader over them, being fixed in their minds with a determined resolution that they would not be subjected to go against the Nephites." (Alma 47:6)
"And it came to pass that they had gathered themselves together upon the top of the mount which was called Antipas, in preparation to battle." (Alma 47:7)
"Now it was not Amalickiah's intention to give them battle according to the commandments of the king; but behold, it was his intention to gain favor with the armies of the Lamanites, that he might place himself at their head and dethrone the king and take possession of the kingdom." (Alma 47:8)
"And behold, it came to pass that he caused his army to pitch their tents in the valley which was near the mount Antipas." (Alma 47:9)
"And it came to pass that when it was night he sent a secret embassy into the mount Antipas, desiring that the leader of those who were upon the mount, whose name was Lehonti, that he should come down to the foot of the mount, for he desired to speak with him." (Alma 47:10)
"And it came to pass that when Lehonti received the message he durst not go down to the foot of the mount. And it came to pass that Amalickiah sent again the second time, desiring him to come down. And it came to pass that Lehonti would not; and he sent again the third time." (Alma 47:11)
"And it came to pass that when Amalickiah found that he could not get Lehonti to come down off from the mount, he went up into the mount, nearly to Lehonti's camp; and he sent again the fourth time his message unto Lehonti, desiring that he would come down, and that he would bring his guards with him." (Alma 47:12)
"And it came to pass that when Lehonti had come down with his guards to Amalickiah, that Amalickiah desired him to come down with his army in the night-time, and surround those men in their camps over whom the king had given him command, and that he would deliver them up into Lehonti's hands, if he would make him (Amalickiah) a second leader over the whole army." (Alma 47:13)
"And it came to pass that Lehonti came down with his men and surrounded the men of Amalickiah, so that before they awoke at the dawn of day they were surrounded by the armies of Lehonti." (Alma 47:14)
"And it came to pass that when they saw that they were surrounded, they plead with Amalickiah that he would suffer them to fall in with their brethren, that they might not be destroyed. Now this was the very thing which Amalickiah desired." (Alma 47:15)
"And it came to pass that he delivered his men, contrary to the commands of the king. Now this was the thing that Amalickiah desired, that he might accomplish his designs in dethroning the king." (Alma 47:16)
"Now it was the custom among the Lamanites, if their chief leader was killed, to appoint the second leader to be their chief leader." (Alma 47:17)
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah caused that one of his servants should administer poison by degrees to Lehonti, that he died." (Alma 47:18)
"Now, when Lehonti was dead, the Lamanites appointed Amalickiah to be their leader and their chief commander." (Alma 47:19)
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah marched with his armies (for he had gained his desires) to the land of Nephi, to the city of Nephi, which was the chief city." (Alma 47:20)
"And the king came out to meet him with his guards, for he supposed that Amalickiah had fulfilled his commands, and that Amalickiah had gathered together so great an army to go against the Nephites to battle." (Alma 47:21)
"But behold, as the king came out to meet him Amalickiah caused that his servants should go forth to meet the king. And they went and bowed themselves before the king, as if to reverence him because of his greatness." (Alma 47:22)
"And it came to pass that the king put forth his hand to raise them, as was the custom with the Lamanites, as a token of peace, which custom they had taken from the Nephites." (Alma 47:23)
"And it came to pass that when he had raised the first from the ground, behold he stabbed the king to the heart; and he fell to the earth." (Alma 47:24)
"Now the servants of the king fled; and the servants of Amalickiah raised a cry, saying:Alma 47:25
"Behold, the servants of the king have stabbed him to the heart, and he has fallen and they have fled; behold, come and see." (Alma 47:26
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah commanded that his armies should march forth and see what had happened to the king; and when they had come to the spot, and found the king lying in his gore, Amalickiah pretended to be wroth, and said: Whosoever loved the king, let him go forth, and pursue his servants that they may be slain." (Alma 47:27
"And it came to pass that all they who loved the king, when they heard these words, came forth and pursued after the servants of the king." (Alma 47:28)
"Now when the servants of the king saw an army pursuing after them, they were frightened again, and fled into the wilderness, and came over into the land of Zarahemla and joined the people of Ammon." (Alma 47:29)
"And the army which pursued after them returned, having pursued after them in vain; and thus Amalickiah, by his fraud, gained the hearts of the people." (Alma 47:30)
"And it came to pass on the morrow he entered the city Nephi with his armies, and took possession of the city." (Alma 47:31)
"And now it came to pass that the queen, when she had heard that the king was slain--for Amalickiah had sent an embassy to the queen informing her that the king had been slain by his servants, that he had pursued them with his army, but it was in vain, and they had made their escape--Alma 47:32)
"Therefore, when the queen had received this message she sent unto Amalickiah, desiring him that he would spare the people of the city; and she also desired him that he should come in unto her; and she also desired him that he should bring witnesses with him to testify concerning the death of the king." (Alma 47:33)
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah took the same servant that slew the king, and all them who were with him, and went in unto the queen, unto the place where she sat; and they all testified unto her that the king was slain by his own servants; and they said also: They have fled; does not this testify against them? And thus they satisfied the queen concerning the death of the king." (Alma 47:34)
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah sought the favor of the queen, and took her unto him to wife; and thus by his fraud, and by the assistance of his cunning servants, he obtained the kingdom; yea, he was acknowledged king throughout all the land, among all the people of the Lamanites, who were composed of the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites, and all the dissenters of the Nephites, from the reign of Nephi down to the present time.
...
"AND now it came to pass that, as soon as Amalickiah had obtained the kingdom he began to inspire the hearts of the Lamanites against the people of Nephi; yea, he did appoint men to speak unto the Lamanites from their towers, against the Nephites." (Alma 48:1)
"And thus he did inspire their hearts against the Nephites, insomuch that in the latter end of the nineteenth year of the reign of the judges, he having accomplished his designs thus far, yea, having been made king over the Lamanites, he sought also to reign over all the land, yea, and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites." (Alma 48:2)
"Therefore he had accomplished his design, for he had hardened the hearts of the Lamanites and blinded their minds, and stirred them up to anger, insomuch that he had gathered together a numerous host to go to battle against the Nephites." (Alma 48:3)
"For he was determined, because of the greatness of the number of his people, to overpower the Nephites and to bring them into bondage." (Alma 48:4)
"And thus he did appoint chief captains of the Zoramites, they being the most acquainted with the strength of the Nephites, and their places of resort, and the weakest parts of their cities; therefore he appointed them to be chief captains over his armies." (Alma 48:5)
"And it came to pass that they took their camp, and moved forth toward the land of Zarahemla in the wilderness." (Alma 48:6)
"Now it came to pass that while Amalickiah had thus been obtaining power by fraud and deceit, Moroni, on the other hand, had been preparing the minds of the people to be faithful unto the Lord their God." (Alma 48:7)
...
"Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites." (Alma 48:24)
"Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land." (Alma 48:25)
"AND now it came to pass in the eleventh month of the nineteenth year, on the tenth day of the month, the armies of the Lamanites were seen approaching towards the land of Ammonihah." (Alma 49:1)
...
"Now, if king Amalickiah had come down out of the land of Nephi, at the head of his army, perhaps he would have caused the Lamanites to have attacked the Nephites at the city of Ammonihah; for behold, he did care not for the blood of his people." (Alma 49:10)
"But behold, Amalickiah did not come down himself to battle. And behold, his chief captains durst not attack the Nephites at the city of Ammonihah, for Moroni had altered the management of affairs among the Nephites, insomuch that the Lamanites were disappointed in their places of retreat and they could not come upon them." (Alma 49:11)
...
"And it came to pass, that when the Lamanites saw that their chief captains were all slain they fled into the wilderness. And it came to pass that they returned to the land of Nephi, to inform their king, Amalickiah, who was a Nephite by birth, concerning their great loss." (Alma 49:25)
"And it came to pass that he was exceedingly angry with his people, because he had not obtained his desire over the Nephites; he had not subjected them to the yoke of bondage." (Alma 49:26)
"Yea, he was exceedingly wroth, and he did curse God, and also Moroni, swearing with an oath that he would drink his blood; and this because Moroni had kept the commandments of God in preparing for the safety of his people." (Alma 49:27)
...
"But behold, this was a critical time for such contentions to be among the people of Nephi; for behold, Amalickiah had again stirred up the hearts of the people of the Lamanites against the people of the Nephites, and he was gathering together soldiers from all parts of his land, and arming them, and preparing for war with all diligence; for he had sworn to drink the blood of Moroni." (Alma 51:9)
"But behold, we shall see that his promise which he made was rash; nevertheless, he did prepare himself and his armies to come to battle against the Nephites." (Alma 51:10)
"Now his armies were not so great as they had hitherto been, because of the many thousands who had been slain by the hand of the Nephites; but notwithstanding their great loss, Amalickiah had gathered together a wonderfully great army, insomuch that he feared not to come down to the land of Zarahemla." (Alma 51:11)
"Yea, even Amalickiah did himself come down, at the head of the Lamanites. And it was in the twenty and fifth year of the reign of the judges; and it was at the same time that they had begun to settle the affairs of their contentions concerning the chief judge, Pahoran." (Alma 51:12)
...
"Behold, it came to pass that while Moroni was thus breaking down the wars and contentions among his own people, and subjecting them to peace and civilization, and making regulations to prepare for war against the Lamanites, behold, the Lamanites had come into the land of Moroni, which was in the borders by the seashore." (Alma 51:22)
"And it came to pass that the Nephites were not sufficiently strong in the city of Moroni; therefore Amalickiah did drive them, slaying many. And it came to pass that Amalickiah took possession of the city, yea, possession of all their fortifications." (Alma 51:23)
"And those who fled out of the city of Moroni came to the city of Nephihah; and also the people of the city of Lehi gathered themselves together, and made preparations and were ready to receive the Lamanites to battle." (Alma 51:24)
"But it came to pass that Amalickiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle, but kept them down by the seashore, leaving men in every city to maintain and defend it." (Alma 51:25)
"And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore." (Alma 51:26)
And thus had the Lamanites obtained, by the cunning of Amalickiah, so many cities, by their numberless hosts, all of which were strongly fortified after the manner of the fortifications of Moroni; all of which afforded strongholds for the Lamanites." (Alma 51:27)
"And it came to pass that they marched to the borders of the land Bountiful, driving the Nephites before them and slaying many." (Alma 51:28)
"But it came to pass that they were met by Teancum, who had slain Morianton and had headed his people in his flight." (Alma 51:29)
"And it came to pass that he headed Amalickiah also, as he was marching forth with his numerous army that he might take possession of the land Bountiful, and also the land northward." (Alma 51:30)
"But behold he met with a disappointment by being repulsed by Teancum and his men, for they were great warriors; for every man of Teancum did exceed the Lamanites in their strength and in their skill of war, insomuch that they did gain advantage over the Lamanites." (Alma 51:31)
"And it came to pass that they did harass them, insomuch that they did slay them even until it was dark. And it came to pass that Teancum and his men did pitch their tents in the borders of the land Bountiful; and Amalickiah did pitch his tents in the borders on the beach by the seashore, and after this manner were they driven." (Alma 51:32)
"And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night, and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day." (Alma 51:33)
"And it came to pass that Teancum stole privily into the tent of the king, and put a javelin to his heart; and he did cause the death of the king immediately that he did not awake his servants.
...
"And thus endeth the twenty and fifth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; and thus endeth the days of Amalickiah." (Alma 51:37)
"AND now, it came to pass in the twenty and sixth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, behold, when the Lamanites awoke on the first morning of the first month, behold, they found Amalickiah was dead in his own tent; and they also saw that Teancum was ready to give them battle on that day." (Alma 52:1)

Moroni the Man, Pahoran the Propagandist

.
.
Author's note: Due to the sometimes intense reactions that this paper seems to produce, probably due to the church history of the topic, and the article's conclusion, I have included lots of Book of Mormon quotes in this article, to provide a very detailed reading and more complete picture, in order to specifically show that it's all in the book. For those who are already quite familiar with the Book of Mormon, it should be sufficient to read the bold print in the quotes, or perhaps even skip some. If the editor would like, many quotes could be quickly summed up, changed to footnotes, made into a list, or even deleted. Just that even with the quotes, it's difficult for some people to see or understand. For example, one author who has published many Book of Mormon articles--right after complaining that there were too many quotations in the article--told me, "I can't see the text supporting your hypothesis in this article." Of course, maybe leaving all the quotes still won't help some people see it (frown).

Please excuse some parts of my format, and especially the footnotes (all of which I got off the internet--I'm writing for fun, in a place with no library nearby (especially Church books), etc.) Posting on this blog stripped most of my formatted things, including bolds, paragraphing, etc.


Moroni the Man, Pahoran the Propagandist

Version 2.9
©2005

by grego




Introduction

In a review of literature and member's thoughts (ranging from General Authorities to lay members) regarding the epistles written between Captain Moroni and Pahoran, the following is found about Moroni and his epistle:
"complaining, harsh language, accusing, unjustified, scolding (1); had it all wrong (2); scathing, angry, blistering (3); accused Pahoran of being iniquitous (4); mistakenly reproving (6); appears as a very tired commander, deplorable political blunder, seethes with ... resentment, passing judgment with a peevish and quite unjustified charge of negligence, charged, serious (, but ... worse to come), pent-up emotions, frustrated, piles one accusation on another, even goes so far ..., worse still, grave charge of treason, scathingly sarcastic, flat accusation, fling a challenge, placing the blame (squarely on those to whom he is writing), bursting with pent-up emotions, goes all out, accused the wrong man, withering onslaught (7); very caustic; demanding (8); censure, complains, threatens (9); on his high horse, blows his top, very indiscreet, had it all wrong (10); very intense and very single-minded, nasty, didn't apologize (11); [falsely accuses] (12); only thinks he was in the right (so, his anger was unrighteous anger) (13); speaks very harsh, (inappropriate) threats, harsh (14); underinformed (15); murmuring (16); really nasty, accuses him of treason (17); wrote stinging rebuke and threat (18); epistle of condemnation (19); unjustly accuse (20); mistakingly reproving (21); uses some rather harsh words, lengthy complaint (22); vulnerable to error, criticizing... harshly, accused, long letter criticizing, threatening, harsh judgment, unjustly criticized (23), accused, not at all politically correct, [un]tactful, went so far as to threaten the life of his commander and chief; accus[ing] (24); state of aggravation and frustration, questioned, threatened (25); subtly suggesting, blunt threat, written in passion, and without careful planning, harsh (and false) accusation, personal insult [to Pahoran] (26)." (see Sources in Appendix).

On the other hand, these are some of the ways Pahoran's reply is described:
"very patriotic, though censured, not angry; even praised [Moroni] (1); powerful example of self-control and meekness (2); without a trace of bitterness or defensiveness, devastating position, wrongly blamed, to his distinct credit; outstanding reply, impressive reply (3); not iniquitous (4); noble (5); wrongly accused, worthy; wise, temperate, constructive reply, didn't get on his high horse, didn't resent, understands perfectly, rejoices in Moroni's greatness (7); noble and patriotic reply, conciliatory and lovely in spirit (9); [didn't counter] with anger; healing, falsely accused (12); [tells] the truth (13); forgiving (14); sweet and generous response (15); touched; remarkable mildness; wrongly blamed (18); patriotic reply (19); nobility of soul not to condemn when he was very unjustly accused; served selflessly (20); wisdom and restraint, cordial and composed; remarkable example, some might say [he] would have been justified in responding harshly, love and respect, desire to understand, self-control, replaces anger with kindness, unjustly accused (22); restraint, understood, not offended, he understood and rejoiced in Moroni’s righteous intentions (23); must have bristled over Moroni's accusation of disloyalty, the passions of righteous indignation must have boiled within him, shows no more than a hint of this emotion and it is a model for all who might be wrongfully accused (24); if ever one had cause to feel defensive for being falsely accused, it was Pahoran, a masterpiece of self-restraint and patience, rather than returning complaint for complaint, he calmly and kindly explained, patient response, surely...pleasing to Heavenly Father (25); designed to give Moroni immediate comfort for his grave concerns, explains the real conditions, quite well crafted (sic), well thought out (sic), took time to understand [Moroni's epistle], very calm and conciliatory, careful not to demonstrate any personal hurt, skips over personal insult as if it did not matter, focuses on the important aspects (26)." (see Sources in Appendix).

There is only one author who included something good about Moroni in his treatise; but then he seemed to turn right around and forget it later. Of the comments above, all of those which had been made by general authorities have appeared in the Ensign; most of the rest have been printed in other publications some church members might have seen (Deseret Book books, Mormon internet magazines, gospel CD's, etc.); and a few seem to appear only on their own internet site. It is regularly taught in church, and I think it quite safe to say that the majority of church members believe the above descriptions to be accurate and truthful. We have the picture of an ungodly, anger-from-the-devil Moroni and a wronged pious, forgiving, valiant Pahoran. However, by following Mormon's clues and hints, the Book of Mormon actually leads us to a very different conclusion, which teaches us a few lessons that are extremely pertinent for our days.



The Situation Previous to the Epistles

What was the situation previous to Moroni's epistle?
(For those of you familiar with it or in a rush, you may skip the first few paragraphs of this part. Basically, the Nephites were getting exhausted in many ways, and killed.)
From the start of the war till the writing of Moroni's epistle is about five years. During all this time, not once is there mention of Nephite superiority, especially by number. (Of course, this never is the case.) In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Nephites never have enough men, supplies, or reinforcements. Battles are won by Nephite stratagem and Lamanite fear and surrender. It seems that the Lamanites win every single battle, up until meeting with Teancum. But here they are not defeated; only opposed and stopped in their progress. Though we don't read of epistles requesting Pahoran and his men to send provisions and men, we see, scattered throughout the record, the circumstances that Moroni and the Nephite armies are in:
"...Amalickiah had gathered together a wonderfully great army, insomuch that he feared not to come down to the land of Zarahemla" (Alma 51:11).
...
"And it came to pass that the Nephites were not sufficiently strong in the city of Moroni; therefore Amalickiah did drive them, slaying many..." (Alma 51:23).
...
"And thus had the Lamanites obtained, by the cunning of Amalickiah, so many cities, by their numberless hosts..." (Alma 51:27).
"And it came to pass that they marched to the borders of the land Bountiful, driving the Nephites before them and slaying many" (Alma 51:28).
...
"And now, Teancum saw that the Lamanites were determined to maintain those cities which they had taken, and those parts of the land which they had obtained possession of; and also seeing the enormity of their number, Teancum thought it was not expedient that he should attempt to attack them in their forts" (Alma 52:5).
...
"And it came to pass that he kept thus preparing for war until Moroni had sent a large number of men to strengthen his army" (Alma 52:7).
...
"And [Moroni] also said unto [Teancum], I would come unto you, but behold, the Lamanites are upon us in the borders of the land by the west sea; and behold, I go against them, therefore I cannot come unto you" (Alma 52:11).
...
"And thus were the Nephites in those dangerous circumstances in the ending of the twenty and sixth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi" (Alma 52:14).
...
"... Now Moroni was compelled to cause the Lamanites to labor, because it was easy to guard them while at their labor; and he desired all his forces when he should make an attack upon the Lamanites" (Alma 53:5).
...
"And it came to pass that he did no more attempt a battle with the Lamanites in that year, but he did employ his men in preparing for war, yea, and in making fortifications to guard against the Lamanites, yea, and also delivering their women and their children from famine and affliction, and providing food for their armies" (Alma 53:7).

And speaking about the people of Ammon:
"But it came to pass that when they saw the danger, and the many afflictions and tribulations which the Nephites bore for them..." (Alma 53:13).
...
"...they (the two thousand stripling warriors) never had hitherto been a disadvantage to the Nephites, they became now at this period of time also a great support..." (Alma 53:19).

"And it came to pass that Moroni felt to rejoice exceedingly at this request [to exchange prisoners], for he desired the provisions which were imparted for the support of the Lamanite prisoners for the support of his own people; and he also desired his own people for the strengthening of his army" (Alma 54:2).

The Nephites win a major battle, and begin to be victorious (Alma 55:27, 28); yet the Lamanites do not falter:
"And [the Lamanites] were continually bringing new forces into that city, and also new supplies of provisions" (Alma 55:34).
...
"And I [Helaman] did join my two thousand sons...to the army of Antipus, in which strength Antipus did rejoice exceedingly; for behold, his army had been reduced by the Lamanites because their forces had slain a vast number of our men..." (Alma 56:10).

Helaman recounts the cities taken by the Lamanites, saying:
"...these are the cities of which the Lamanites have obtained possession by the shedding of the blood of so many of our valiant men..." (Alma 56:13).

Then he says that when he and his boys arrived at the city,
"...I found Antipus and his men toiling with their might to fortify the city."
"Yea, and they were depressed in body as well as in spirit, for they had fought valiantly by day and toiled by night to maintain their cities; and thus they had suffered great afflictions of every kind."
"And now they were determined to conquer in this place or die; therefore you may well suppose that this little force which I brought with me, yea, those sons of mine, gave them great hopes and much joy" (Alma 56:15-17).

Two thousand unproven boys becomes a "great support"? What conditions the Nephites must have really been in!
So, from all this we understand that the Lamanite armies were much bigger, and seemed to have all the provisions they needed, while the Nephites were continually short of both supplies and men.
Then, from Helaman, we learn that at the beginning of the 29th year, there were many provisions and 6,000 men sent to Helaman (Alma 57:6). This is a big help; in fact, Helaman now calls their troops a "strong force" (Alma 57:8). But, we read that the provisions were "not any more than sufficient" (Alma 57:15). And the Lamanites are also continually receiving provisions and reinforcements (Alma 57:17), and after just one battle--one serious battle that almost spelled defeat for the whole quarter--Helaman writes that they had "suffered great loss" (Alma 57:23)--at least one thousand men were killed (Alma 57:26). Now, Helaman's "strong force" becomes "small bands" (Alma 58:1), and "[the Lamanites] were so much more numerous than was our army" (Alma 58:2). So, Helaman sends a epistle to Pahoran and asks for men and supplies (Alma 58:4). While waiting, he says that "the Lamanites were also receiving great strength from day to day, and also many provisions..." (Alma 58:5) He and his men wait in "difficult circumstances" for "many months", without help, even until they are "about to perish for the want of food" (Alma 58:7). Not just a few weeks or a month or a few months, but many months. Then, finally, some food and 2,000 men arrive (Alma 58:8), hardly enough to provide strong support. In fact, Helaman talks about "embarassments" (Alma 58:8). And, somehow, the men who just arrived didn't know the situation back home either, and why there weren't more men and supplies (Alma 58:9). If it was, as Pahoran writes, because the freemen were so daunted by the king-men that they didn't dare go (Alma 61:4), why did these men come, and how did they not know the situation? Helaman calls the Lamanite armies at this time as "innumerable" (Alma 58:8). Helaman doesn't know the situation in Zarahemla (Alma 58:9, 34) and finally, Helaman suggests to Moroni that there is a faction in the government (Alma 58:36).

Then happens the event that pushes Moroni to write his epistle: the Lamanite recapture of the city of Nephihah. The city of Nephihah had been taken by the Lamanites early in the war (Alma 51:24, 26). However, it seems the Nephites have already retaken it by the time of Alma 56:25, for we read that the Lamanites "...durst (not) ...march down against the city of Zarahemla; neither durst they cross the head of Sidon, over to the city of Nephihah."

Helaman writes that the Lamanites have left that area of the land (Alma 58:30), and says: "...those cities which had been taken by the Lamanites, all of them are at this period of time in our possession..."
"But behold, our armies are small to maintain so great a number of cities and so great possessions."
"But behold, we trust in our God who has given us victory over those lands, insomuch that we have obtained those cities and those lands, which were our own" (Alma 58:31-33).

So, the city is back in the hands of Helaman for sure at this time. Immediately after receiving Helaman's epistle, Moroni sends a epistle to Pahoran and asks him to send help to Helaman. But, nothing happens. No help, no reply--nothing. The armies are left stranded and cut off in every way, and on all sides. In these circumstances, the city of Nephihah is taken by the Lamanites again, this time with an "exceedingly great slaughter": "And thus being exceedingly numerous, yea, and receiving strength from day to day, by the command of Ammoron [the Lamanites] came forth against the people of Nephihah, and they did begin to slay them with an exceedingly great slaughter."
"And their armies were so numerous that the remainder of the people of Nephihah were obliged to flee before them; and they came even and joined the army of Moroni." (Alma 59:7-8).

Why was the city so unprotected, resulting in the deaths of so many?
"And now as Moroni had supposed that [the government] should (have sent men) to the city of Nephihah, to the assistance of the people to maintain that city..."
"Therefore he retained all his force to maintain those places which he had recovered."
"And now, when Moroni saw that the city of Nephihah was lost he was exceedingly sorrowful, and began to doubt, because of the wickedness of the people, whether they should not fall into the hands of their brethren."
"Now this was the case with all his chief captains. They doubted and marveled also because of the wickedness of the people, and this because of the success of the Lamanites over them."
"And it came to pass that Moroni was angry with the government, because of their indifference concerning the freedom of their country" (Alma 59:9-13).

Right when there had been some progress, with the little forces and supplies that they had, a major city is lost again, with a great slaughter. The wounded, the suffering, the desolated families, those who could escape--with all their blood and cries--stagger into his area and, like a broken record, recount the tale of horror--one that, by now, has been going on for too long. Captain Moroni does not feel anger; he does not worry that the Lamanites showed him up; he is not on some high horse. He is exceedingly sorrowful. His people have just been killed. His people are losing their lives, but worse, they are losing their spiritual lives. Captain Moroni is not happy. Why was the city of Nephihah lost? Was it only the government's fault? Note that even in such circumstances and anger, Moroni still does not jump right on the government and blame them for every Nephite problem, for every Nephite loss. Moroni and all his chief captains know the true, deeper answer: the Nephites, as a people, were wicked. This is the prophecy given to Nephi:
"For behold, in that day that they (the Lamanites) shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except [thy seed] shall rebel against me also."
"And if it so be that they rebel against me, [the Lamanites] shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance" (1 Nephi 2:23-24).
However, notwithstanding this fact, and knowing the importance of the government and the oath of the chief judge, Moroni had expected that the government would have sent men to support the armies. Pahoran had received a report from Helaman and Moroni both, probably requesting the similar things, yet nothing had been done. When Moroni finds out that Pahoran and the others hadn't helped, he is angry, and writes his epistle. This is not a quick venting of anger, desperation, or frustration, nor a slow seething anger of hate; but, there had been too many problems, too much suffering by too many Nephites, too little help, too much being stranded, too little leadership from the government--from the beginning of the war up until the present time--a period of about five years--with only a few noted exceptions. The Nephites in the areas of the war were always outnumbered, always hungry, always working very hard, being injured and slain, etc.
Lastly, Mormon, our abridger, who also understands the situations and problems that can occur during war, and who has the more full records of the Nephites, writes that "Moroni was angry with the government, because of their indifference concerning the freedom of their country" (Alma 59:13). Notice, he does not write "their seeming indifference" or such, but "indifference."



Captain Moroni's Epistle

So, what does the epistle say? Moroni directs the epistle to Pahoran, "and also to all those who have been chosen by this people to govern and manage the affairs of this war" (Alma 60:1). Throughout his entire epistle, Moroni writes to this same audience. In his epistle, Moroni has one main question: why? In addition, he:
1. reminds them of their duties that they had agreed to abide by;
2. explains the great sufferings of the soldiers and the peoples;
3. says none of them he is writing to has explained any reason to him;
4. reminded them that there is a real war going on, and real people dying;
5. rebukes them for neglect and lack of diligence in their duties;
6. tells them that actions are necessary to survive;
7. fears the Nephites will be destroyed, because of their wickedness, and the slothfulness of the government;
8. traces the origin of the problems, and the cause of some of the current problems, back to the king-men;
9. admits his lack of information about the current state of the government, and the possibility that they are traitors, or less;
10. reinforces the need for the government to act to save the people;
11. says that God will not hold them guiltless if they continue to fail in their duties;
12. explains that "except ye do repent of that which ye have done, and begin to be up and doing, and send forth food and men unto us, and also unto Helaman...behold it will be expedient that we contend no more with the Lamanites until we have first cleansed our inward vessel, yea, even the great head of our government" (Alma 60:24).
He continues: "And except ye grant mine epistle, and come out and show unto me a true spirit of freedom, and strive to strengthen and fortify our armies, and grant unto them food for their support, behold I will leave a part of my freemen...And I will come unto you, and if there be any among you that has a desire for freedom, yea, if there be even a spark of freedom remaining, behold I will stir up insurrections among you, even until those who have desires to usurp power and authority shall become extinct" (Alma 60:25). 13. then explains that "...it is because of your iniquity that we have suffered so much loss" (Alma 60:28).
14. then tells them what will be the result of their failure to repent: "Behold it is time, yea, the time is now at hand, that except ye do bestir yourselves in the defence of your country and your little ones, the sword of justice doth hang over you; yea, and it shall fall upon you and visit you even to your utter destruction" (Alma 60:29).
15. reminds them that if they can't do the job, they shouldn't be in the position:
"Behold, I wait for assistance from you; and, except ye do administer unto our relief, behold, I come unto you, even in the land of Zarahemla, and smite you with the sword, insomuch that ye can have no more power to impede the progress of this people in the cause of our freedom" (Alma 60:30).
16. prophesies that "...the Lord will not suffer that ye shall live and wax strong in your iniquities to destroy his righteous people" (Alma 60:31). Note Moroni's language:
"For behold, the Lord will not suffer that ye shall live and wax strong in your iniquities to destroy his righteous people."
"Behold, can you suppose that the Lord will spare you and come out in judgment against the Lamanites, when it is the tradition of their fathers that has caused their hatred, yea, and it has been redoubled by those who have dissented from us, while your iniquity is for the cause of your love of glory and the vain things of the world?" (Alma 60:31-32).
Compare this to Alma's, when Alma was preaching to the people of Ammonihah:
"But behold, I say unto you that if ye persist in your wickedness that your days shall not be prolonged in the land, for the Lamanites shall be sent upon you; and if ye repent not they shall come in a time when you know not, and ye shall be visited with utter destruction; and it shall be according to the fierce anger of the Lord" (Alma 9:18).
"For he will not suffer you that ye shall live in your iniquities, to destroy his people. I say unto you, Nay; he would rather suffer that the Lamanites might destroy all his people who are called the people of Nephi, if it were possible that they could fall into sins and transgressions, after having had so much light and so much knowledge given unto them of the Lord their God" (Alma 9:19);
Alma then explains what he means by "so much light and knowledge", then says:
"And now behold I say unto you, that if this people, who have received so many blessings from the hand of the Lord, should transgress contrary to the light and knowledge which they do have, I say unto you that if this be the case, that if they should fall into transgression, it would be far more tolerable for the Lamanites than for them" (Alma 9:23).
"For behold, the promises of the Lord are extended to the Lamanites, but they are not unto you if ye transgress; for has not the Lord expressly promised and firmly decreed, that if ye will rebel against him that ye shall utterly be destroyed from off the face of the earth" (Alma 9:24)?
Note what follows, from Moroni and Alma respectively:
"Ye know that ye do transgress the laws of God, and ye do know that ye do trample them under your feet. Behold, the Lord saith unto me: If those whom ye have appointed your governors do not repent of their sins and iniquities, ye shall go up to battle against them" (Alma 60:33).
"And now for this cause, that ye may not be destroyed, the Lord has sent his angel to visit many of his people, declaring unto them that they must go forth and cry mightily unto this people, saying: Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand..." (Alma 9:25).

17. at this point, says something that some might call unrighteous condemnation:
"...your iniquity is for the cause of your love of glory and the vain things of the world... (Alma 60:32). Ye know that ye do transgress the laws of God, and ye do know that ye do trample them under your feet..." (Alma 60:33).
18. then explains why he said this: "Behold, the Lord saith unto me: If those whom ye have appointed your governors do not repent of their sins and iniquities, ye shall go up to battle against them" (Alma 60:34).
19. explains what he will do and why: "And now behold, I, Moroni, am constrained, according to the covenant which I have made to keep the commandments of my God; therefore I would that ye should adhere to the word of God, and send speedily unto me of your provisions and of your men, and also to Helaman" (Alma 60:35).
20. explains that a lack of cooperation from the government will result in this:
"And behold, if ye will not do this I come unto you speedily; for behold, God will not suffer that we should perish with hunger; therefore he will give unto us of your food, even if it must be by the sword.
21. admonishes them, "Now see that ye fulfil the word of God" (Alma 60:36).

Captain Moroni knows that Pahoran received a report from Helaman, (Alma 58:4) in which no doubt the miraculous warriors' stories were related. Moroni refers to the success of Helaman and his stripling warriors as a foil to Pahoran and the Nephites he rules over. Helaman led and commanded in righteousness and cared for his men, and they obeyed him exactly, and were all saved--not even one died. On the other hand, thousands of Pahoran's people are lying dead all over, all around, and many more are going to be there very shortly. Pahoran and/ or the government leaders might think or say, "I am leading and upholding my end of my oath as leader, but they aren't following, so that's why they are dead"; but Moroni makes it clear that the main reason the slain are dead is not because they were wicked or disobedient to their righteous leaders; it is because their leaders failed to do their part.
The government's main sins were slothfulness, neglect, and idleness, and possibly more. Moroni lets them know that if they were to continue like so, the war would, in a short moment, become very real for them, just as it has been very real for many people and the soldiers for a long time. How did Moroni know that they were guilty of any sins? Did he really know that ? Why does he threaten them like that?

Mormon tell us, when praising Captain Moroni, that:
"And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger" (Alma 48:15),
"And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity" (Alma 48:16).

As Captain Moroni says, God has made it known to him, what he should do. The Nephite leaders have become the enemy. Moroni needs to cleanse the inner vessel--this was the way that the Lord would deliver them. Moroni uses a play on words--"cleanse the inner/ inward vessel"--to signify that both the figurative and literal interpretations are actually the same solution to the Nephites' problem--"the inner vessel" meaning both the Nephites, and Pahoran and his fellows who are safe from the Lamanites in the inner part of the land.
Moroni clearly speaks in the name of God. Would Moroni be so bold as to speak in God's name untruthfully, committing blasphemy? So, either Moroni is a liar, or Pahoran is a liar.
Yet, why is it hard to accept that Moroni speaks by, or for, God? Only because of Pahoran's letter.



Pahoran's Reply

Suddenly, we now have communication from Pahoran. And why hadn't Pahoran sent an epistle any time over the years before that, at least to explain the situation to the chief commander of the army?
Pahoran has a great plan. Let's take a look at it:
"Therefore, (1) my beloved brother, Moroni, let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, (2) let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God" (Alma 61:14).
"Therefore, (3) come unto me speedily with a few of your men, and (4) leave the remainder in the charge of Lehi and Teancum; (5) give unto them power to conduct the war in that part of the land, according to the Spirit of God, which is also the (6) Spirit of freedom which is in them" (Alma 61:15).
"Behold (7) I have sent a few provisions unto them, that they may not perish until ye can come unto me" (Alma 61:16).
"(8) gather together whatsoever force ye can upon your march hither, and (9) we will go speedily against those dissenters, (10) in the strength of our God according to the faith which is in us" (Alma 61:17).
"And (11) we will take possession of the city of Zarahemla, that (12) we may obtain more food to send forth unto Lehi and Teancum; yea, we will go forth against them in the strength of the Lord, and (13) we will put an end to this great iniquity" (Alma 61:18).
...
"See that ye (14) strengthen Lehi and Teancum in the Lord; (15) tell them to fear not, for God will deliver them, yea, and also all those who stand fast in that liberty wherewith God hath made them free" (Alma 61:21).

Hey, wait a moment--this all sounds familiar. Let's stop and take another look at Moroni's epistle:
"And now, (1) my beloved brethren--for ye ought to be beloved..." (Alma 60:10)
...
"...yea, if we had gone forth against them (10) in the strength of the Lord, we should have dispersed our enemies, for it would have been done, according to the fulfilling of his word" (Alma 60:16).
...
"And except ye grant mine epistle, and come out and show unto me a true (6) spirit of freedom, and strive to strengthen and fortify our armies, and (7, 12) grant unto them food for their support, behold (4, 14) I will leave a part of my freemen to maintain this part of our land, and (5, 15) I will leave the strength and the blessings of God upon them, that none other power can operate against them--" (Alma 60:25).
"And this because of their (10) exceeding faith, and their patience in their tribulations--" (Alma 60:26).
"And (3) I will come unto you, and (6, 8) if there be any among you that has a desire for freedom, yea, if there be even a spark of freedom remaining, behold (2, 8) I will stir up insurrections among you, even (9, 13) until those who have desires to usurp power and authority shall become extinct" (Alma 60:27).
...
"Behold, (7, 12 ) I wait for assistance from you; and, except ye do administer unto our relief, behold, (11) I come unto you, even in the land of Zarahemla, and (2) smite you with the sword, insomuch that ye can have no more power to impede the progress of this people in the cause of our freedom" (Alma 60:30).
...
"Ye know that ye do transgress the laws of God, and ye do know that ye do trample them under your feet. Behold, the Lord saith unto me: (9, 13) If those whom ye have appointed your governors do not repent of their sins and iniquities, ye shall go up to battle against them" (Alma 60:33).
"... therefore I would that ye should adhere to the word of God, and (7, 12) send speedily unto me of your provisions and of your men, and also to Helaman" (Alma 60:34).
"And behold, if ye will not do this (3) I come unto you speedily; for behold, God will not suffer that we should perish with hunger; (12) therefore he will give unto us of your food, even if it must be by the sword. Now see that ye fulfil the word of God" (Alma 60:35).

Notice how nicely Pahoran's epistle matches up to Moroni's? If Pahoran's purposes are only upright and outstanding ones, why does he use so much of the same or very similar wording, and plagiarize Moroni's plan, as if it were his own, but just change the "bad" people in it from himself and other officials, to the king-men?
The most important thing about Pahoran's response is something that is not there: a deep apology of serious regret and repentance--even if he had truly had nothing to be blamed for. Pahoran blames the king men for everything (Alma 61:3-4). Granted, at the very beginning, he does say: "I do not joy in your great afflictions, yea, it grieves my soul" (Alma 61:2). But then, immediately, he goes straight to the king-men and the current situation. The past, along with all the governments' sins and mistakes, is not just glossed over--it's completely ignored! There is no answer, not even in the smallest part, to respond to Moroni's many askings of "why?".
While Moroni wants to know "why?" and talks about the moral and religious issues of death, responsibility, and repentance, Pahoran avoids these issues altogether. In fact, after just one verse of "so sorry" to assuage Moroni's temper towards him, Pahoran jumps right into strongly goading Moroni into anger against the king-men, right away pointing all ten fingers of blame at the king-men (the scapegoats) with an urgency that makes others forget all other issues: "there are those who do joy in your afflictions" (Alma 61:3). And, in fact, Moroni and his men do seem to forget.
And notice the overfluousness of positive, gun-ho, religious synonyms and groupings: "freemen" (Alma 61:3), (others have been the cause of) great iniquity" (Alma 61:4), "in the defence of their country and their freedom", and "to avenge our wrongs" (Alma 61:6), "rejoice in the greatness of your heart", "do not seek for power, save only to retain my judgment-seat that I may preserve the rights and the liberty of my people", "my soul standeth fast in that liberty in the which God hath made us free" (Alma 61:9); "resist wickedness" (61:10), "our trust in him", and "he will deliver us" (Alma 61:13), "resist evil...that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God" (Alma 61:14); "according to the Spirit of God, which is also the Spirit of freedom which is in them" (Alma 61:15); "in the strength of our God according to the faith which is in us" (61:17); "we will go forth against them in the strength of the Lord, and we will put an end to this great iniquity" (Alma 61:18); "God will deliver them, yea, and also all those who stand fast in that liberty wherewith God hath made them free" (Alma 61:21). Pahoran's short epistle contains more of these types of references than Moroni's; and yet, it seems to be missing any thing that might be called the power and authority of God and a testimony of the Spirit, or even a real purpose for having been put in the epistle. In other words, it is not just a very patriotic reply; it seems too patriotic, too overly patriotic. Such a positive, faith-promoting, emotionally-charged response, coming at the end of years of deathly silence and ignoring, is quite drastic and suspicious.
There's another word for this sort of thing: propaganda (27). Pahoran's letter is full of propaganda--it uses tricky and deceitful ways to persuade Moroni to believe and act the way Pahoran wants him to. Pahoran's letter is full of it, including Glittering Generality and Name-Calling (such as using words that deliver states of high positive emotion and blaming all the problems on those bad king-men), Transfer (using Moroni's own plan and words, such as "beloved brother" and references to God and freedom), Testimonial (I am gathering a strong force of freedom fighters, so you just know I couldn't have ever guilty of anything), Plain Folks (darn, I've got problems myself, just like you--never mind they pale in comparison--I just want to be a poor old chief judge, that's all, but those bad king-men won't let me), Fear (the rebels and the Lamanites, aren't you worried and angry?, let's get them like this, we can do it), and Band Wagon (God, Lehi, Teancum, freedom fighters, me, you, everyone you can gather on your way here). (Treating this subject of how Pahoran's epistle constitutes propaganda would require another article; suffice it to say for our purposes, it clearly fits the bill.)
Is it possible that Pahoran also relied on or borrowed from Helaman's epistle, to increase the propaganda power of Transfer and unity/ team-building between Helaman, Moroni, and himself? Though this proposition seems likely to be speculation, Helaman had written both to Moroni and Pahoran; one would assume the epistles were at least similar. Helaman writes:
"But behold, they have received many wounds; nevertheless they stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has made them free; and they are strict to remember the Lord their God from day to day; yea, they do observe to keep his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments continually; and their faith is strong in the prophecies concerning that which is to come" (Alma 58:40).

Pahoran writes:
"... I, Pahoran, do not seek for power, save only to retain my judgment-seat that I may preserve the rights and the liberty of my people. My soul standeth fast in that liberty in the which God hath made us free" (Alma 61:9).
...
See that ye strengthen Lehi and Teancum in the Lord; tell them to fear not, for God will deliver them, yea, and also all those who stand fast in that liberty wherewith God hath made them free. And now I close mine epistle to my beloved brother, Moroni" (Alma 61:21).

In only one other place in the Book of Mormon does this phrase occur--when Alma tells his people:
"And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you." (Mosiah 23:13).

Anything else, possibly? Helaman writes:
"But behold, we trust in our God who has given us victory over those lands...which were our own" (Alma 58:33).
...
Alma 58:37
"But, behold, it mattereth not--we trust God will deliver us, notwithstanding the weakness of our armies, yea, and deliver us out of the hands of our enemies.
...
Alma 56:47
Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.
...
Alma 56:8
But I would not suffer them that they should break this covenant which they had made, supposing that God would strengthen us, insomuch that we should not suffer more because of the fulfilling the oath which they had taken.
...
Alma 56:56
But behold, to my great joy, there had not one soul of them fallen to the earth; yea, and they had fought as if with the strength of God; yea, never were men known to have fought with such miraculous strength; and with such mighty power did they fall upon the Lamanites, that they did frighten them; and for this cause did the Lamanites deliver themselves up as prisoners of war.
...
Alma 58:10
Therefore we did pour out our souls in prayer to God, that he would strengthen us and deliver us out of the hands of our enemies, yea, and also give us strength that we might retain our cities, and our lands, and our possessions, for the support of our people.

Pahoran writes:
Alma 61:13
"But behold [God] doth not command us that we shall subject ourselves to our enemies, but that we should put our trust in him, and he will deliver us."
...
Alma 61:21
"See that ye strengthen Lehi and Teancum in the Lord; tell them to fear not, for God will deliver them, yea, and also all those who stand fast in that liberty wherewith God hath made them free. And now I close mine epistle to my beloved brother, Moroni."
...
Alma 61:17
Gather together whatsoever force ye can upon your march hither, and we will go speedily against those dissenters, in the strength of our God according to the faith which is in us.
Alma 61:18
And we will take possession of the city of Zarahemla, that we may obtain more food to send forth unto Lehi and Teancum; yea, we will go forth against them in the strength of the Lord, and we will put an end to this great iniquity.

So, some phrases are similar, though we don't know if Pahoran actually used Helaman's words.

Pahoran says, "... I, Pahoran, do not seek for power, save only to retain my judgment-seat that I may preserve the rights and the liberty of my people" (Alma 61:9). This sounds as if he was preserving the rights and the liberty of his people when he had been in the judgment-seat before; yet, though he had already had a few years to do so, the current problem was largely to blame on his not having done just that.
It is strange that Pahoran only worries about sending provisions to Moroni's men--Lehi and Teancum--even though Pahoran had already long received three epistles from the military requesting aid for Helaman and his men: from Helaman himself (Alma 58:4), in Moroni's first epistle of request for support for Helaman (Alma 59:3), and THREE times in Moroni's main epistle (Alma 60:3, 24, and 34). So why does Pahoran tell Moroni (Alma 61:15-16) he has sent men and provisions to Lehi and Teancum, but not to Helaman? Does Pahoran fear he would be putting his own life in danger by not having enough protection, if he sent men to Helaman, even though Helaman and his men, and many other Nephites had been killed and were still in severe danger because they lacked this support? Yet, that he must send some things, not men, to Lehi and Teancum, to at least hopefully appease Moroni? Do fear and selfishness motivate him? But then, weren't men, as he had written, flocking to him daily? And then why does Pahoran tell Moroni that "...we will take possession of the city of Zarahemla, that we may obtain more food to send forth unto Lehi and Teancum..." (Alma 61:18). Again, what about Helaman? Possibly to his credit, though, perhaps Helaman had written him and told him that he and his men trusted God would still deliver them; and Pahoran might have also interpreted the words of Moroni, that the most important matter was to take care of the government problem (Alma 60:23), as meaning to keep the men for the main problem first.
And how long has the rebellion Pahoran writes about been going on? How long has there been this major problem of a king in Zarahemla? This is also left unexplained. He starts by saying that the rebels are "exceedingly numerous" (Alma 61:3); but after getting kicked out of Zarahemla and fleeing to the land of Gideon, he has "...sent a proclamation throughout this part of the land; and behold, they are flocking to us daily, to their arms, in the defence of their country and their freedom, and to avenge our wrongs. And they have come unto us, insomuch that those who have risen up in rebellion against us are set at defiance, yea, insomuch that they do fear us and durst not come out against us to battle" (Alma 61:6-7). He tells Moroni to "Gather together whatsoever force ye can upon your march hither, and we will go speedily against those dissenters... (Alma 61:17). This sounds like all the freemen have already gathered to Pahoran, due to his diligence and hustle-bustle. But, had Pahoran been so outnumbered, and the gathering been going on slowly for a while, wouldn't the rebels have attacked long ago, instead of waiting? It sounds like the fleeing and the gathering were so quick, the rebels hadn't had time to react; if they were then set at defiance, wouldn't all the continuing daily flocking over a long period of time give Pahoran a much superior force? Also, by what happens later--when Moroni raises the standard of liberty and gains thousands on his march to Gideon (Alma 62:5)--it seems as if this all-out rebellion and Pahoran's call-to-arms has actually only been in existence for a week or two, at the most a month. So what about all the previous months? What about all the previous years? Yet Pahoran makes as if this had been the state of affairs for the whole time: "they have withheld our provisions, and have daunted our freemen that they have not come unto you" (Alma 61:4).
What was that? "Our provisions"? "Our freemen"? No, Pahoran! Moroni's and the other soldiers' provisions, and reinforcements--not yours. You never suffered from lack of provisions, and only lack of men after years.
Pahoran also writes, "I am not angry" (Alma 61:9). What?! Yeah, as the only way he could be angry would be if he were either completely NOT guilty of everything that Moroni accused him of, or completely guilty and not willing to repent, such as we see with Ammoron, in the case of his exchange of epistles with Moroni (see Alma 54:15).
Towards the very end of his epistle, Pahoran finally, finally admits a hint of uncertainty and stalling (Alma 61:19)--just a tad bit of "perhaps a little of this is my fault". His excuse for not having acted previously is this: "And now, Moroni, I do joy in receiving your epistle, for I was somewhat worried concerning what we should do, whether it should be just in us to go against our brethren" (Alma 61:19). (Wow! Pahoran has just gone from a magnimonious "not angry" (because of your epistle) to "joy" (for having received it).) This seems like a guy who doesn't want to do wrong; who is very peace-loving. His excuse sounds good. Unfortunately for him, there had already been a few recent precedents--mostly very recent precedents--that he must have been aware of.
The first big test of the new form of government of judges--of which Pahoran was a receiver--and likely a main part of Nephite general knowledge history, was due to Nehor, in part, and Amlici--a Nephite who wanted to be king. He and his followers dissented and rebelled, chose a king for themselves, came to battle against the Nephites and lost once, united with the Lamanites, and then fought against the Nephites again. This time, Alma himself led the Nephites against them, killing Amlici personally, with the help of God (Alma 2).
The second time is when the Zoramites were rebel Nephites. They had been given chances, at least religiously, to change. But they continued their course of separation with the Nephites, and they "...became Lamanites; therefore, in the commencement of the eighteenth year the people of the Nephites saw that the Lamanites were coming upon them; therefore they made preparations for war; yea, they gathered together their armies in the land of Jershon" (Alma 43:4).
...
"And now, as the Amalekites were of a more wicked and murderous disposition than the Lamanites were, in and of themselves, therefore, Zerahemnah appointed chief captains over the Lamanites, and they were all Amalekites and Zoramites" (Alma 43:6).

So, here the Nephites fight against a mixture of very recent dissenter Nephites, other previous Nephite dissenters, and lineal Lamanites, whipped up by the Nephite dissenters; and in fact, all the leaders of the Lamanite forces had been previous Nephites. This happened about 12 years before Pahoran and his king-men problem, and seven years before he had become chief judge.
The third example is in Alma 46, we read about Amalickiah, the man who wanted to be king, and his followers who wanted him to be king. They rebel, and are about to leave the country, but Moroni intercepts them and captures most of them. Then we read that Moroni forces those captured to enter into a covenant of freedom or be put to death: "And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom" (Alma 46:35). Nevertheless, those "few" were put to death. This happened about 10 years before Pahoran and his king-men problem, and five years before he had become chief judge.
And the fourth time is when "...the people of Morianton took up arms against their brethren, and they were determined by the sword to slay them" (Alma 50:26). Moroni found out that they had "intentions to flee into the land northward" (Alma 50:31). Then we read that "...the people who were in the land Bountiful, or rather Moroni, feared that they would hearken to the words of Morianton and unite with his people, and thus he would obtain possession of those parts of the land, which would lay a foundation for serious consequences among the people of Nephi, yea, which consequences would lead to the overthrow of their liberty" (Alma 50:32). So Moroni sends and army to stop them, and "...the army which was sent by Moroni, which was led by a man whose name was Teancum, did meet the people of Morianton; and so stubborn were the people of Morianton, (being inspired by his wickedness and his flattering words) that a battle commenced between them, in the which Teancum did slay Morianton and defeat his army, and took them prisoners, and returned to the camp of Moroni..." (Alma 50:35). This happened about six years before Pahoran and his king-men problem, and one year before he had become chief judge.
Then, for a fifth example, in Alma 51, we read about the most important precedent, where Pahoran was already chief judge and himself was involved in a previous king-men dispute. When the Lamanites come to attack the Nephites, the king-men refuse to take up arms to defend their country, but joy that the Lamanites might win; Moroni then desires power "to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death" (Alma 51:15). After getting it, he commands his army to go against the dissenters; the dissenters refuse to fight for the Nephites, so a fight with the Nephites ensues, and "four thousand of those dissenters ... were hewn down by the sword; and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period" (Alma 51:19). Note that these dissenters did not openly commit to fight against or overthrow the Nephite government.
Not only had the rebels thrown Pahoran and the rightful government out, they had also made a treaty with the Lamanites. They clearly conspired with the Lamanites to overthrow the Nephite nation. Before, Moroni and Teancum had pursued other "rebels" because they feared that the "rebels" would later turn against the Nephites; but here, the rebels had already done it. An angel had earlier told Alma to preach to the Ammonihahites:
"...except they repent the Lord God will destroy them" (Alma 8:16).
"For behold, [the Ammonihahites] do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people, (for thus saith the Lord) which is contrary to the statutes, and judgments, and commandments which he has given unto his people" (Alma 8:17).
Alma does so, telling them:
"...he has commanded you to repent, or he will utterly destroy you from off the face of the earth..." (Alma 9:12).
"Behold, do ye not remember the words which he spake unto Lehi, saying that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land? And again it is said that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord" (Alma 9:13).
...
"For he will not suffer you that ye shall live in your iniquities, to destroy his people. I say unto you, Nay; he would rather suffer that the Lamanites might destroy all his people who are called the people of Nephi, if it were possible that they could fall into sins and transgressions, after having had so much light and so much knowledge given unto them of the Lord their God" (Alma 9:19).
It seems clear what the Lord sets forth as the result for rebellious Nephites. The Lord also makes it clear that it should and would be worse for rebel Nephites than for Lamanites. If Pahoran felt fine fighting the Lamanites, who were also relatives to the Nephites, why not the rebel Nephites?
Perhaps Pahoran felt that it would be unjust to have a preemptive strike against the rebel Nephites? He might feel so because there had not been a battle yet, and the rebel Nephites had not invaded their territory from the outside; besides, these were their brethren. Yet, there had not been a battle yet between the people of Morianton, nor with the people of Amalickiah, when the Nephites went against them. Of course the Nephites first offered peace, but then when it was rejected, they fought. Also, they had not just gathered in an empty spot--they had gathered in Zarahemla, the capital city, and kicked the rightful government out; and had they the power to, they would have killed him.
When the Lamanites, ruled by Amalickiah, fight against the Nephites, we read that the Nephites fought back. In these verses we read about some of the principles of Nephite self-defense:
"Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary..." (Alma 48:14)
...
"...they were compelled reluctantly to contend with their brethren, the Lamanites " (Alma 48:21).
"Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all--they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God" (Alma 48:23).
"Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites" (Alma 48:24).
"Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land" (Alma 48:25).

Here, the principles for Nephite defense to the point of slaying, and to what degree, and why, are pretty clearly laid out; the rebel Nephites fit the bill completely. This is even in the face of great reluctance by the Nephites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood, and they knew it wouldn't help the Lamanites' salvation much (Alma 48:23)--Pahoran's main concerns with fighting in the rebels. One more interesting point is that the Nephites clearly consider the Lamanites their brethren, also. This happened about five years before Pahoran and his king-men problem, and after he had become chief judge.
So, what seems like a righteous excuse for Pahoran, reveals itself, at best, as either a very lame excuse, or a cowardly one. At worst, it is an out-and-out, bold-faced lie. Five times--four times just recently--death was the judgment for rebels of this sort or less--and just in harrowing circumstances, not during a war when the course of action, and call to action, were much clearer. In Pahoran's case, it is not just refusal of some men to stay and support the government, or oppose it in a precarious situation, or fight against it at a bad time--but a full-blown rebellion, even with the choosing of a king!--during a time of war and instability that seriously endangered the entire country, and that caused great suffering and the deaths of thousands of loyal countrymen. How could Pahoran not have known if it would be proper to fight against them? And, had he nipped this problem in the bud, it would not be, as he himself admits, "the cause of sore affliction among us" (Alma 61:4).
To top it all off, all the political leaders up to this point in the history of the Nephites, excepting probably Pahoran's father Nephihah, were personally involved in leading their people into battle; however, Pahoran clearly sits this one out--in the middle of the land, surrounded by safety on all sides--until the king-men can't be avoided, of course.
Near the end of his letter, Pahoran writes something that has a very interesting twist of words: "But ye have said, except they repent the Lord hath commanded you that ye should go against them" (Alma 61:20). No, Pahoran, that is not what Moroni said! The Lord was talking about you and your men, not the king-men (Alma 60:34).
Hypocritically, Pahoran tells Moroni that he sent a proclamation for the people to gather to "avenge our wrongs" (Alma 61:6). Well, the biggest wrongs I can see from this whole episode are those resulting from Pahoran and his men, not the king-men. And those wrongs were suffered by the fighters, not by Pahoran and his men. If there was any "avenging wrongs" to do, it would be done by Moroni and his men against Pahoran and his men! Woops--"avenge" is used by only four other humans in the Book of Mormon, and always by wicked men (Ammoron--Alma 54:16, 24; Giddianhi--3 Nephi 3:10; wicked Nephites--Mormon 3:9, 14; Shiz--Ether 14:24). Other than that, remember, vengeance is the Lord's (Mormon 3:15, 8:41; Ether 8:22), not man's.
Though Pahoran does say that he stands at the head of the freemen, and that he sides with Moroni and God and freedom, never does he present any evidence of this, nor does he answer any of Moroni's charges against him and his men.



If Pahoran Were a Righteous Man...

Think a moment, what letter would you really expect from Pahoran? Here's something I imagine it might be like:

Dear Captain Moroni,

Your letter has truly pricked my heart, and caused me and my men to repent, to avoid further condemnation and death. I, along with most of my men, were lazy and slothful for quite a while, and busy thinking of our problems at home, which were many; but this is no excuse for neglecting our duties to our most valiant freemen. Your details of the suffering and deaths of our people, along with your threat on our lives, along with new forces of king-men driving us out of Zarahemla into Gideon, have awakened us to a sense of our duties. We are sending half of our provisions and food to all the soldiers on the front lines, and I have ordered my men to fast one meal a day for our success (it's ok, we're not fighting). If you feel this is not enough and want more, let me know, and we will send whatever you want. Your plan is a good one, and we are gathering a force right now to oppose the king-men. Please forgive us as you can. We failed to act when we could have, on numerous occasions, to bring peace and freedom to our land. We were scared, unsure who was true and who was a traitor, and how strongly; and we were afraid of not getting reelected. Come quickly, and we will be able to solve this problem once and for all, and end this war. Our sorrow and regret will never bring back our citizen's lives or correct your sorrows and sufferings. In light of this, my men and I have all covenanted to be freemen, and have committed our lives to our country. We have all decided to either stand at the front of all battles now for as long as we live, or send our sons to the front of every battle, if they are willing to substitute for us; and, when the war is over--if we survive--we have all covenanted to step down from our positions and give up any retirement we might have coming to us. We are sorry, and are willing to do what we can now to help. We now desire to be even as King Benjamin, who spent his life in the service of his fellowman.

Your new friend,
Pahoran

A letter without guile or deceit, with acknowledgment of faults, shortcomings, and sins; with true sorrow, and repentance, with thankfulness for the call to repentance and the help, with a renewed spirit of commitment to life and a willingness to repair the damage done or at least try to do what is still possible to do right, serve, and love of God and country. Contrast what Pahoran wrote, for example, to the feelings expressed by: the citizens of King Benjamin (Mosiah 4:1-2, 5:2-5), Alma (Mosiah 17:2-4, 18:1-2, etc.), the sons of Mosiah (Mosiah 27:32-37, 28:2-4), the Anti-Nephi-Lehies (Alma 24:7), Alma the younger (Mosiah 27:23-37), Amulek (Alma 10:5-10, etc.), Zeezrom (Alma 14:6-7, 15:3-12), the dissenters that Nephi preached to (Helaman 5:17), and the Lamanites that Nephi and Lehi preached to (Helaman 5:50-52, 6:1)--some of the people clearly mentioned in the Book of Mormon who, after being called to repentance, repented and were similarly changed in many ways--unlike anything we see or hear of Pahoran.


Afterwards

Moroni is happy at the arrival of Pahoran's epistle because he learns that Pahoran is not a traitor (Alma 62:1); this does not mean, nor have any connection to, whether Pahoran was a traitor or not in the past. Being a traitor was never an accusation by Moroni, though it was mentioned as a possibility. However, Moroni never says, and neither does Mormon nor Pahoran, that Pahoran and his men were not guilty of any of the other things that he was accused of by Moroni, including being a traitor.
Pahoran had written that the first reason to win was to get food for the armies: "And we will take possession of the city of Zarahemla, that we may obtain more food to send forth unto Lehi and Teancum..." (Alma 61:18). Yet, after the king-men rebellion is put down, and "Pahoran [is] restored to his judgment-seat" (Alma 62:8), it is not Pahoran--but Moroni--who immediately sends food and 12,000 men to the warfront (Alma 62:12)--though this is Pahoran's job, and even though it was the reason Pahoran wanted to "take possession of the city of Zarahemla". Also, Moroni does not send them to Lehi and Teancum first, but to Helaman and his area, as he had requested that Pahoran do in his epistles many times.
After the battle with the king-men, Moroni does not let Pahoran off the hook so easily. It's time for battle on the front line for him!--fighting the king-men was just a start (Alma 62:14, 26). No longer will Pahoran be allowed to sit on his throne in Zarahemla, surrounded by safety in the heart of the land. And here in battle, Pahoran probably learns more about the realities of war and how the government's decisions directly control and influence many of them.



More About Captain Moroni

What else does Mormon say about Moroni?
From the start, I realize that some may say that Mormon might feel a strong bond linking himself with Moroni--two great warriors with similar strong feelings for their people. I hope it is also possible that a righteous man with such a great sacred mission to write the defining scripture of the final dispensation, to write "the words of God", would not let his personal views consistently affect the validity of his statements and abridgements over many chapters. Some "scholars" have, for example, argued along the lines that what the Nephite prophets wrote about the Lamanites was no doubt slanted because of the personal and cultural view that the Nephites held towards them; but such claims are completely unsupported and amount to hearsay, not to mention the irony of such "scholars" imposing their own personal and cultural views upon the Nephite prophet writers. It must also be that there were many more good things about Captain Moroni on the Nephite records that Mormon doesn't tell us, and that what he writes about Moroni is, like most of the record, abridged.

We learn that: "...it was the custom among all the Nephites to appoint for their chief captains, (save it were in their times of wickedness) some one (sic) that had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy..." (3 Nephi 3:19). This was undoubtedly the case with Moroni. In fact, while there were many leaders, and even military leaders in the Book of Mormon, Mormon writes particularly of Captain Moroni. The following is his summary:
"And thus [Moroni] was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians" (Alma 48:10).
"And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery" (Alma 48:11);
"Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people" (Alma 48:12).
"Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood" (Alma 48:13).
"Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives" (Alma 48:14).
...
"...this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity" (Alma 48:16).
"Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men" (Alma 48:17).
"Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God" (Alma 48:18).
It just doesn't seem right that Mormon would write that Moroni was this type of man, then later turn around and concentrate heavily and in detail on an episode that shows the opposite; that Captain Moroni, in fact:
sought to overthrow their liberty;
didn't live unto the Lord his God;
was very unchristian-like;
was a man of very imperfect and unsound understanding, especially when angry;
delighted in shedding blood;
shaken by a trial;
seeking to overthrow the government;
ungrateful for the help the government had provided;
sought to destroy his own people;
sought to overthrow their liberty;
offended someone;
threatened to raise his sword against his friends, when their lives weren't necessarily threatened;
gloried in doing evil;
gloried in destroying his people;
didn't keep the commandments of God;
caused iniquity;
showed how the devil got to him through the manipulation of his emotions/ his anger;
and, acted unlike a man of God,
--all without making any editorial comment about it.

Now, after all that--believe it or not, one Book of Mormon "scholar"--Brother X--wrote me and said that my thesis was wrong because "Moroni is a military man and is not portrayed as a prophet. He is righteous, but not prophetic. When he needs prophecy he goes to Alma." His point was, Moroni just plain wasn't a prophet, and whenever he needed spiritual help or prophecy or revelation, he went to a "true" prophet; thus, Moroni couldn't have had any revelations about Pahoran, etc. as he tells us that he did. If this were the case, Captain Moroni is in fact a liar--one more touché for Pahoran! Yes, we are aware of one time that Moroni went to Alma for prophecy. Quite a respectful act, don't you think? When Nephi wanted to know where to go to get food, he went to Lehi (1 Nephi 16:23). However, this hardly therefore makes Nephi a non-prophet, nor does it forever deny him any possibility to receive revelation, whether Lehi was there or not. Hadn't Nephi already, even at this point, experienced direct revelation, seen glorious visions and angels and the Holy Ghost, had faith to work mighty miracles, had a patience that few of us will ever have, etc.? Now, can a "military man" be a prophet also? The Book of Mormon shows us many prophet warriors such as Nephi, King Mosiah, King Benjamin, King Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Mormon, and Moroni. And Gidgiddoni, of course, as in 3 Nephi 3:19: "Now it was the custom among all the Nephites to appoint for their chief captains, (save it were in their times of wickedness) some one that had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy; therefore, this Gidgiddoni was a great prophet among them, as also was the chief judge." We have already seen that Captain Moroni, when facing the kingmen, comes up with a plan, prays mightily for it, prophesies, extends a religious covenant for others, prophesies some more, and stirs people up to freedom (Alma 46:12-29). Those familiar with this should be able to accept that Moroni could have revelation.
Brother X then continued: "There is nothing detectable in Pahoran's actions that suggest nefarious motives that Moroni discerned." "Had Moroni been a prophet with insight into Pahoran's dark soul..." Was it necessary that Moroni discerned anything, in order that he might be called, or be, a prophet? It seems that Brother X is assuming that a prophet should have been able to discern and know the exact situation, from the beginning to the end. While that happens in the scriptures sometimes, we see that it seems to be the exception. If Moroni isn't a prophet because he didn't see it, what about Helaman? Was he "not a prophet" because he didn't see it, notwithstanding all the scriptures that seem to indicate the contrary? This way of thinking leads to questions like, "Why didn't the prophets know that the Hoffman forgeries were fake?" and "Why didn't the Lord reveal that there would be a tornado in SLC?" Besides, how do we know that Moroni DIDN'T see it? Notwithstanding their words, do we know what the prophets (or anyone with the spirit) really see? Conclusion: nothing shows that neither Captain Moroni nor Mormon weren't, nor couldn't have been, prophets or men that received the revelations they said God gave them.

From general gospel understanding, and from examples like Amalickiah and Morianton in the Book of Mormon, we know that anger can be a dangerous, out-of-control thing that results in regretted consequences. We might naturally assume that since Captain Moroni wrote the epistle to Pahoran in his anger, because he was angry with the government, it would cause him, or at least allow him, to write something unjust. However, earlier episodes that involve Moroni's anger show that this is not a valid assumption; in fact, they show the complete opposite.
When Moroni hears about Nephite dissensions caused by Amalickiah, he "[is] angry" (Alma 46:11). And what does he do, in this state of anger? He writes the title of liberty, rallies his freedom-loving countrymen, establishes the covenant freemen, prophesies, and keeps the Nephite country from being overthrown--far from evil things.
In a previous dialogue between Captain Moroni and one enemy, Ammoron, Moroni calls him a "child of hell" (Alma 54:11)--among other things--and threatens him. Not very diplomatic, right? Yet, is there anything untrue or out-of-bounds with his letter? Nothing. Ammoron is a child of hell, isn't he? Does Moroni make evil or unjust threats? No. Does he fulfill his word, given in this letter? Yes, he does. (You know, the arming of the women and children thing, for example.) Again, when Moroni reads Ammoron's response, he "[is] more angry, because he knew that Ammoron had a perfect knowledge of his fraud; yea, he knew that Ammoron knew that it was not a just cause that had caused him to wage a war against the people of Nephi" (Alma 55:1). So he carries out a plan. He arms the numerous prisoners inside with weapons, and his army surrounds the city on the outside. We read "...this (slaying the drunk Lamanites) was not the desire of Moroni; he did not delight in murder or bloodshed, but he delighted in the saving of his people from destruction; and for this cause he might not bring upon him injustice, he would not fall upon the Lamanites (in their sleep) and destroy them in their drunkenness" (Alma 55:19). After the Lamanites wake up, they see their situation, and surrender, pleading for mercy (see Alma 55:23). We see that this "was the desire of Moroni". He took them prisoners of war, and took possession of the city, and caused that all the prisoners should be liberated, who were Nephites; and they did join the army of Moroni, and were a great strength to his army" (Alma 55:24).

No doubt Captain Moroni was angry that people would want to fight the Nephites and do horrible things to them. Yet we read in many other places how Moroni could have killed many enemies in the course of battle, but instead he spared the lives of many thousands of them, always giving them ample opportunity to live, and trying to get them to surrender and leave in peace (and in one piece) (see Alma 43:53, 44:1, 6, 7, 11, 15, 19, 20; 55:19, 24; 62:15-17; 27-29).

In the matter of the king-men in Alma 51, though he is angry and might be morally right and justified in forcing dissenting Nephites to defend the Nephite nation, Captain Moroni waits for all the correct authority before acting to do so. At the end of fighting, the dissenters that surrender are allowed a trial--there is no "no surrender" possibility for Moroni until death.

Captain Moroni was a man who took his covenants and word seriously, as we see in another episode with his enemy Zerahemnah. He covenants with them, saying:
"...deliver up your weapons of war unto us, and we will seek not your blood, but we will spare your lives, if ye will go your way and come not again to war against us." Otherwise, they would kill them. Zerahemnah gives up his weapons, but does not accept the other part; Moroni then returns Zerahemnah's weapons and says, "...Behold, we will end the conflict..." (Alma 44:10).
"Now I cannot recall the words which I have spoken, therefore as the Lord liveth, ye shall not depart except ye depart with an oath that ye will not return again against us to war. Now as ye are in our hands we will spill your blood upon the ground, or ye shall submit to the conditions which I have proposed" (Alma 44:11).
Zerahemnah again refuses, and they continue the fight. At this point, ". . . Moroni was angry, because of the stubbornness of the Lamanites; therefore he commanded his people that they should fall upon them and slay them. And it came to pass that they began to slay them..." (Alma 44:17), until the Lamanites accept the covenant, at which point it's peacefully over--once again, anger does not control him and make him do something rash. In fact, where Zerahemnah tried to treacherously kill Moroni, Moroni refuses to kill him when he has the chance--he mercifully lets him go along with the others.

Later, Moroni makes another covenant--to be a freeman. He covenants to maintain "their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them" (Alma 46:20). He covenants "[he] would not forsake the Lord their God; or, in other words, if [he] should transgress the commandments of God, or fall into transgression, and be ashamed to take upon [him] the name of Christ, the Lord should rend [him] even as [he] had rent [his] garments" (Alma 46:21). And, "We covenant with our God, that we shall be destroyed, even as our brethren in the land northward, if we shall fall into transgression; yea, he may cast us at the feet of our enemies, even as we have cast our garments at thy feet to be trodden under foot, if we shall fall into transgression" (Alma 46:23). This is the covenant he was referring to in his epistle to Pahoran. It would be hypocritical and very unlike Moroni to use unrighteous threats and means to fulfill a righteous covenant. We see this even in an example that most men would fail: in Alma 55:18-19, we read that "and for this cause he (Moroni) might not bring upon him injustice, he would not fall upon the Lamanites and destroy them in their drunkenness". To Moroni, ends did in no way justify the means.

Captain Moroni was one of many righteous men in the Book of Mormon, including Nephi, Helaman, Alma the younger, Ammon, King Mosiah, etc. who righteously threatened with harsh words, or even killed, as moved by the Spirit, to further the work of God. Yet none of the others have come under any condemnation by church members in this dispensation for it. For example, Alma was very blunt in his preaching--telling people things like: "your hearts have been grossly hardened against the word of God," and "ye are a lost and a fallen people" (Alma 9:30); calling people "stiffnecked" (Alma 9:31); telling people it is good that something bad happened to them: "that ye may be humble, and that ye may learn wisdom; for it is necessary that ye should learn wisdom; for it is because that ye are cast out, that ye are despised of your brethren because of your exceeding poverty, that ye are brought to a lowliness of heart; for ye are necessarily brought to be humble" (Alma 32:12); saying people were proud and unrepentant: "I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest" (Alma 13:13); etc. The result? Some repented, and some: "were desirous that they might destroy Alma and Amulek; for they were angry with Alma, because of the plainness of his words unto Zeezrom" (Alma 14:12); and, "they were angry because of the word, for it did destroy their craft; therefore they would not hearken unto the words" (Alma 35:3). Yet I have never found that Alma has been criticized for speaking. Why is Captain Moroni criticized, then? One might say, Alma was preaching to sinners, but Moroni was writing to Pahoran, and Pahoran wasn't a sinner. But how do we know--why are we so sure--that Pahoran and his men were not sinners? The Book of Mormon contains many examples of repentant sinners, such as Zeezrom--a sinner who, after hearing the word of God, had his heart pricked, trembled, knew God, and repented. But if it were the case that Pahoran were a sinner, the Book of Mormon would say so, wouldn't it? Why do we find it so hard to believe that Moroni could have inspiration and revelation to guide him what to say? Why do we create an impossible double standard for Moroni, that none of the others in the Book of Mormon have to held to, yet we let Pahoran off so easily, with no proof?

In fact, Mormon shows that Captain Moroni and his way of dealing with men is representative of God. There is an abrupt change from Alma's spiritual treatise to his son regarding the justice and mercy of God towards sinners in Alma 42, to the episode of Zerahemnah's attack and Moroni's defense in Alma 43 and 44. However, the parallels are many. In Alma 42 we read of God's plan of salvation; he is a just God that allows sinners to suffer the consequence of breaking the law, which is death; but he is also a merciful God in that sinners may be redeemed, but only by choosing to obey a covenant that God puts forth. Moroni treats the enemies of freedom the same way, according to their circumstances. When Zerahemnah and the Lamanites sin in attacking the Nephites, Moroni gives them two choices--die, which is your natural consequence of being an enemy; or take an oath to never come back and fight (Alma 44:6). Interestingly, Zerahemnah tries another trade-off (Alma 44:8)--one in which mercy robs justice; Moroni therefore necessarily refuses (see Alma 42:25). Later, in Alma 46, 51, and 62, Moroni does the same thing with the king men--choose to die, which is your natural consequence of rebellion and sedition; or choose to obey an oath to actively support freedom. Teancum uses this same method to deal with the people of Morianton in Alma 50:35-36, and the Nephites later use it to deal with the Gadianton robbers in 3 Nephi 5:4. Just like God, Moroni gives men liberty to choose death or life (for example, see 2 Nephi 10:23, Helaman 14:30-31, 2 Nephi 2:27). (King Benjamin mentioned that the natural man is an enemy of God.) For Mormon, Moroni is the epitome of mortal man attaining godliness; the best representative of lion and lamb, of justice and mercy; the closest and clearest that a man has become Man (see 3 Nephi 11:8), other than Jesus Christ himself.



More About Pahoran

What else does Mormon say about Pahoran in the Book of Mormon?
Of all the judges mentioned in the Book of Mormon, Pahoran seems to be the only "good" one that doesn't have much good written about his reign. Much is written about Alma serving righteously as chief judge (Mosiah 29:43; see also Alma 1-4). We read that Nephihah, "the second chief judge, died, having filled the judgment-seat with perfect uprightness before God" (Alma 50:37), and that he had been chosen by Alma to take over the sacred things (Alma 50:38). After Pahoran, Pahoran II was quickly assassinated (and then his brother slain); after him, we read that "...Helaman did fill the judgment-seat with justice and equity; yea, he did observe to keep the statutes, and the judgments, and the commandments of God; and he did do that which was right in the sight of God continually; and he did walk after the ways of his father, insomuch that he did prosper in the land" (Helaman 3:20); and also "Helaman died, and his eldest son Nephi began to reign in his stead (as chief judge). And it came to pass that he did fill the judgment-seat with justice and equity; yea, he did keep the commandments of God, and did walk in the ways of his father" (Helaman 3:37). Though nothing is said about their reigns, Cezoram and his son are assassinated by Gadianton robbers (Helaman 6:15, 18-19). Also, if one considers that Nephi probably followed Alma's precedent and yielded the judgment seat to a righteous man to allow himself to preach, this also helps establish Cezoram as a good man. A Gadianton robber is then mentioned as being chief judge (obviously not good). We then hear of Lachoneus, who is described as "a just man, and [who] could not be frightened by the demands and the threatenings of a robber; ...he did cause that his people should cry unto the Lord for strength against the time that the robbers should come down against them" (3 Nephi 3:12). "...therefore, this Gidgiddoni was a great prophet among them, as also was the chief judge (Lachoneus)" (3 Nephi 3:19); "'And now it was Gidgiddoni, and the judge, Lachoneus, and those who had been appointed leaders, who had established this great peace in the land" (3 Nephi 6:6). Lastly, Lachoneus II is chief judge, of whom is written little--yet from the situation we see that he was a judge who could be counted on to deliver justice (3 Nephi 6:19, 25, 26, 29, 30). Not once, however, does Mormon write anything minimally similar about Pahoran. After the epistels, Mormon writes just this about Pahoran:
"And thus ended the thirtieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; Moroni and Pahoran having restored peace to the land of Zarahemla, among their own people, having inflicted death upon all those who were not true to the cause of freedom" (Alma 62:11).
...
"And Pahoran did return to his judgment-seat..." (Alma 62:44).
...
"For behold, Pahoran had died, and gone the way of all the earth..." (Helaman 1:2).

In mentioning all the chief judges in the Book of Mormon, there is also only one time that the oath of the chief judge is mentioned. That is when Pahoran takes office. The "oath and sacred ordinance" was "to judge righteously, and to keep the peace and the freedom of the people, and to grant unto them their sacred privileges to worship the Lord their God, yea, to support and maintain the cause of God all his days, and to bring the wicked to justice according to their crime" (Alma 50:39). It is possible that including the oath here, and only here, is intentional on Mormon's part, to give us a larger background that clarifies Pahoran's duties, shows that he neglected them, and holds him accountable for his actions.

Right after being appointed chief judge, Pahoran is confronted with men who want to have kings instead of chief judges. Kudos that he didn't accept a bribe to change the government in exchange for being the first king (Alma 51:3), or such, though such thinking might have had many reasons. A resolution comes before the people: choose a king government (and give up liberty) or maintain a chief-judge government (and keep liberty). These two sides are supported by king men and freemen, respectively. The people vote, and the current free form of government stands. There are two things about this situation that raise questions, though. We read that "the voice of the people came in favor of the freemen, and Pahoran retained the judgment-seat, which caused much rejoicing among the brethren of Pahoran and also many of the people of liberty..." (Alma 51:7). It might read better with a period after "freemen", instead of a comma: "the voice of the people came in favor of the freemen. And Pahoran retained the judgment-seat, which caused much rejoicing among the brethren of Pahoran and also many of the people of liberty..." Although the freemen were happy that the current form of government was to remain, not "all" of them, nor even "most" of them--just "many" of them--were happy that Pahoran was its choice. One might say, yes, but it also says that "And those who were desirous that Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name of freemen;" yet, the statement following that says "and thus was the division among them, for the freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government" (Alma 51:6)--which seems that they were not supporting Pahoran being chief judge, but Pahoran being chief judge. Secondly, one wonders why the king-men were so bold as to ask for favors from Pahoran right after his taking office (Alma 50:40, 51:1-2). If he had been elected, appointed, sustained, etc. by the people in some way, is it that the king-men helped, perhaps with a plan to help the weakest or most corruptible judge win, or the one that they thought would most likely grant them this favor, or conspire with them? If this is the case, then one might conclude that Pahoran's appointment was because of the king-men and "many" of the freemen, not because he was a clear better choice due to his superior goodness and superior abilities. This is not to condemn Pahoran of anything--just to understand the Nephite situation better and show other possibilities.

It is perhaps poetic justice that one sees in the situation that occurs after Pahoran dies. The judgment seat becomes the bane of all three of his sons who aspire to it. Interestingly, it says that Pahoran had many sons, but only three aspired to the judgment seat (Helaman 1:3-4)--wow, sounds like none of his many sons suffered or was killed in the big war. How does a true freedom-loving leader do that? Two of his sons fill the judgment seat very briefly, and are killed because of it--one by assassination and the other because of running away from it--and his Lamanite enemies--during war. The other is put to death for trying to lead others to rebel against his brother (this all occurs in Helaman 1). There is more. Later, Helaman II, the son of Helaman--the religious leader who humbly became military leader and then suffered so much under the hand of Pahoran and the other political leaders--is made chief judge in their places (Helaman 2:2). Unlike Pahoran's sons, however, he is saved from an assassination attempt (Helaman 2:9), and his son, Nephi, is later chosen to be chief judge after him (Helaman 3:37).
Also, it is interesting that Paanchi seems to have been a guy with very close connections to kingmen/ gadianton robbers, and tries to do to his brother what his father claimed the kingmen did to him.



Conclusion

From his other letters and speeches, it is easy to understand that Captain Moroni was not a man gifted with persuasive political speech; he is very blunt and straightforward. Yet nowhere in the Book of Mormon do I find that he speaks irresponsibly or goes beyond the correct limit of truth or fairness--i.e., he is never wrong. He is a man who does not delight in bloodshed, and tries to win battles and wars without the shedding of blood. Why do we apparently assume or understand, then, that what Captain Moroni wrote in his epistle to Pahoran was wrong? Yes, he was human; but where else in the Book of Mormon do we see a righteous man making any similar, "clear" mistake? If it were so, why does Mormon so "clearly" point it out, then not comment at all? And if the plates were small, and the space and the time to write in it limited (Words of Mormon 1:5, 3 Nephi 5:8, 3 Nephi 26:6, Mormon 8:5, Mormon 9:33), why would Mormon go to such great lengths to show us that it is possible for a righteous man to have faults, make a mistake or a misjudgment, or to sin? The whole lesson could have been summed up and learned much more quickly, succinctly, and easily.

I believe it is true that Captain Moroni and others in the army could have done more to communicate and understand Pahoran and the situation. But, Pahoran and his men were in charge of the war; he was the "upper man", so to say; he was responsible for initiating and continuing communications and informing Moroni of the Nephite situations, especially regarding war matters; and all communication attempts that Helaman and Moroni had sent to him, were unanswered in both word and action. Men, provisions, and food had been in short supply for a long time, resulting in thousands of deaths, great suffering, famine, capture (and whatever else), etc. for the armies and all the Nephite people who were in the war zone, including many women and children; yet after a long period of time, nothing about the situation had changed, even after communications about the necessity of getting them.

I believe that Moroni's purpose in his epistle was to make it very clear to Pahoran and his men that it was time to stand up and forcefully take sides in the war, and that they would either fight with Moroni and his men, or against them; and quickly. There was no longer any time for hesitation. Does the tone seem harsh? What must be done to wake a deep sleeper, when thousands around him are dying, and the one sleeping is supposed to be their savior?

Let's look back for a moment at what Lehi says to his sons about Nephi:
"And ye have murmured because he hath been plain unto you. Ye say that he hath used sharpness; ye say that he hath been angry with you; but behold, his sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was in him; and that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which is in God, which he could not restrain, manifesting boldly concerning your iniquities" (2 Nephi 1:26).
"And it must needs be that the power of God must be with him, even unto his commanding you that ye must obey. But behold, it was not he, but it was the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, which opened his mouth to utterance that he could not shut it" (2 Nephi 1:27).
"And now my son[s]...if ye will hearken unto the voice of Nephi ye shall not perish..." (2 Nephi 1:28).

This seems to be pretty much the same circumstances as with Captain Moroni, and Pahoran and his men. So, then, why do we praise Nephi and curse his brothers, yet curse Moroni and praise Pahoran? Mostly because of Pahoran's reply.
Moroni says, more than once, that his direction is from God. It was the word of God that told him these things; it was the Lord who made it clear that the governors had sins and iniquities, and that they needed to repent. References to God occur many times in his epistle in these conditions:
"And now, my beloved brethren--for ye ought to be beloved; yea, and ye ought to have stirred yourselves more diligently for the welfare and the freedom of this people; but behold, ye have neglected them insomuch that the blood of thousands shall come upon your heads for vengeance; yea, for known unto God were all their cries, and all their sufferings--" (Alma 60:10)
...
"Have ye forgotten the commandments of the Lord your God? Yea, have ye forgotten the captivity of our fathers? Have ye forgotten the many times we have been delivered out of the hands of our enemies?" (Alma 60:20).
"Or do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?" (Alma 60:21).
...
"Do ye suppose that God will look upon you as guiltless while ye sit still and behold these things? Behold I say unto you, Nay. Now I would that ye should remember that God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first (the great head of our government, as found in Alma 60:24), and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also" (Alma 60:23).
...
"And except ye grant mine epistle, and come out and show unto me a true spirit of freedom, and strive to strengthen and fortify our armies, and grant unto them food for their support, behold I will leave a part of my freemen to maintain this part of our land, and I will leave the strength and the blessings of God upon them, that none other power can operate against them--" (Alma 60:25)
...
"Yea, behold I do not fear your power nor your authority, but it is my God whom I fear; and it is according to his commandments that I do take my sword to defend the cause of my country, and it is because of your iniquity that we have suffered so much loss" (Alma 60:28).
...
"For behold, the Lord will not suffer that ye shall live and wax strong in your iniquities to destroy his righteous people" (Alma 60:31).
"Behold, can you suppose that the Lord will spare you and come out in judgment against the Lamanites...while your iniquity is for the cause of your love of glory and the vain things of the world?" (Alma 60:32).
"Ye know that ye do transgress the laws of God, and ye do know that ye do trample them under your feet. Behold, the Lord saith unto me: If those whom ye have appointed your governors do not repent of their sins and iniquities, ye shall go up to battle against them" (Alma 60:33).
"And now behold, I, Moroni, am constrained, according to the covenant which I have made to keep the commandments of my God; therefore I would that ye should adhere to the word of God, and send speedily unto me of your provisions and of your men, and also to Helaman" (Alma 60:34).
"And behold, if ye will not do this I come unto you speedily; for behold, God will not suffer that we should perish with hunger; therefore he will give unto us of your food, even if it must be by the sword. Now see that ye fulfil the word of God" (Alma 60:35).

Captain Moroni's message is clear: repent or be destroyed. By openly communicating with Pahoran to tell him the will of God, and what he should do to save himself and his men--even though Pahoran seems to be, or is, unrighteous--Moroni once again displays his spirit of freedom and sacred honoring of life. Why does Moroni tell likely traitors and enemies what his plans will be unless they comply with his demands, which are only God's demands? If Pahoran and other leaders and the people in Zarahemla and near parts of the land rebelled, along with all the king-men, wouldn't that have been enough men to overcome Moroni's army, or at least resist it, especially with the help of the Lamanites? So, it seems that Moroni really wants them to repent, and risks a lot--including his life--to give them the chance. Pahoran seems to understand this thrust of Moroni's epistle, as he writes this in his epistle back to Moroni: "whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom" (Alma 61:14). And this is exactly the main intent of Moroni's epistle, and what he had just done!--he had resisted evil with his words, and therefore avoided resisting evil with his sword, in order to retain his and all Nephite freedom. Thus, Captain Moroni succeeds in waking the sleeping savior, and because of it, Pahoran and his men quickly choose to follow Moroni and be true freemen--which saves the Nephite nation.

I believe we need to more fully understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ and realize that certain situations require diligence and force in defense, and understand that many of Moroni's virtues, such as faith, faithfulness, patience, and love, are clearly evident in his epistle to Pahoran, and stop criticizing what we might see as a lack of these virtues, and see that perhaps Pahoran did deserve and need that epistle, and that his response is propaganda and not a true and fitting reply.

Or, perhaps, it just is our great understanding of the Gospel that makes us feel very uneasy about this epistle, as we are reminded of our oaths and sacred covenants--like Pahoran's when he took office--that place great weight of responsibility on us, and curse us when we fail to carry them out. How many of us haven't cringed when we realize that we might be responsible for others' sins and failures, through lack of fulfilling our sacred duties, such as home teaching, or parenting? If we feel loyal to Pahoran and not Moroni when we read their epistles and this account, perhaps we also need to repent.

It might have been the case that while Pahoran was true to liberty, many of the other officials were not. At the least, Pahoran should have communicated these problems of the state to Moroni and Helaman, as they had a direct impact on the Nephite armies and their safety and warring against the Lamanites for so long.

I hope that I have not tipped the balances of justice unjustly against Pahoran. My intent has not been to prove that he was without doubt a wicked man and a lying traitor--just to show that Moroni was absolutely, completely justified in writing the epistle he wrote, in the way he wrote it; and that Pahoran was very likely guilty. I believe we rely too strongly on Pahoran's epistle of strong propaganda, and just strongly assume he was righteous, and don't rely enough on the upright report of Moroni's character in almost every place he is mentioned in the Book of Mormon to understand that his epistle to Pahoran is not out of character for him--his righteous character--and that he was justified by God in writing it.

While Mormon wrote many great things about many great men, never do we hear words like those he wrote for Captain Moroni. Knowing he will likely be the next to the last generation of living Nephites, Mormon names his son Moroni. Why? so he'll be a great warrior? Not as the main reason, as Mormon likely knows that his son will not even have the chance to be like Captain Moroni, but will maybe even be killed by the Lamanites. Captain Moroni is Mormon's epitome not only of "the warrior," but of a "righteous man," the closest any of the Nephites had ever become to being a "Man"--like Jesus (see 3 Nephi 11:8). Yet, notwithstanding this, never have I known or seen readers of the Book of Mormon judge other "characters" in the way that they have judged Moroni. Perhaps the lesson we can learn is not that Moroni judged Pahoran harshly and unrighteously, but that because of a lack of diligence in our reading and understanding, we will one day understand that it is we that have judged Moroni harshly and unrighteously.

In the Book of Mormon, we read some untruths spoken by anti-Christs, etc., and we see much dialogue between clearly defined "righteous men" and "sinners." We clearly understand that we should believe what the righteous men say, and not believe all that the sinners say, though there might be some of it, however little, that might be true. But Mormon helps us know what is true and what is not; what to believe and what not to. It is pretty easy reading. Then we hit the epistles of Moroni and Pahoran. President Benson once said, "We should constantly ask ourselves, "Why did the Lord inspire Mormon...to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?" ("The Keystone of Our Religion," by Ezra Taft Benson. Ensign, October 1986.) In this case of Moroni and Pahoran, we really need to ask this, because things don't seem to make the best sense. Here Mormon plays a game and provides a great Socratic lesson. He doesn't tell us clearly what we should think, but instead leaves us many clues, all over the book, that will help us to understand--if we are attentive to them. Unfortunately, it seems that because Mormon does not come out and clearly tell us, we seriously flounder.

Now for the big lesson: what is the principle that Mormon is teaching us?
If it is possible for us, as readers, to so misunderstand one situation, even when there are many little clues in one book to help us understand, how easy might it be for us to be led astray by other propaganda, where we might have fewer clues and less time and resources to understand them, right now, in our own times? A while ago, President Benson said: "We are going through . . . the greatest propaganda campaign of all time. We cannot believe all we read (or see or hear)" ("The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson," p. 302. Bookcraft, 1988.). He was not speaking about this on the personal level, but on a much higher level. As a modern-day principle correlation: if it were asked right now, in a poll to LDS, who the 3 greatest American presidents were, would it surprise anyone to hear: 1. "Washington" 2. "Lincoln" 3. "FDR". Yet, what do we know about these men and their presidencies? (It has been clearly documented by Thomas DiLorenzo, James Ostrowski, etc. (see Mises.org, LewRockwell.com) that, in fact, Lincoln was an unbeliever who did more to destroy the constitution than any other president. FDR was the president who we now know put us in war with an intentional massacre at Pearl Harbor, and implemented many socialist programs.) If it were asked, who the worst man in the world was, would it surprise anyone to hear "Hitler"? Yet, what do we know about him and the war he was involved in? (Much heavily-documented revisionist work has let him off the hook for many of the atrocities he supposedly committed.) If it were asked who the most evil man in the past 50 years in the USA was, would it surprise anyone to hear "Charles Manson"? Yet, what do we know about him and what he really did, and what really happened? (Read his book, and read Salvador Astucia for another perspective on a Christ-like man in many ways.) Who shot JFK? Who shot Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan? What happened at Columbine? What happened at Waco? What happened on 9-11? Why did we attack Iraq? The answer to these questions is the same from the general public: "Oh come on, everybody knows!" And it's true--we all do know, because it's what we've all been taught in school, on the news, in the papers, and especially from the government. No doubt some of the teaching was deliberate, and some was unknowing. Yet, especially in light of recent research and through the internet, it is certain, that what we know, especially from the government, is not true in many instances. It is only what has been allowed to have been taught us--i.e., a high form of propaganda. The "winners" write history, remember? And what happens when the winners are sinners? Is it possible that all we know, we really can't know, because it's not true? And what we don't know--what the "winners" hid or are hiding from us--might be hundreds of times worse than what we think we know? And what about right now? Can we believe everything we see on the TV news, or read in the newspapers, or hear on the radio? What is our government really doing? What are other organizations, businesses, and people really doing? How do we know for sure? Do all the little clues add up to their answers? Is it really that simple and easy? We now have, for example, a report from Representative Henry A. Waxman (Iraq on the Record Report) that we were told 237--two hundred and thirty-seven!!--"misleading statements"--i.e., "lies"--we were sold by our leaders to get us to go to war with Iraq. How's that for what we really know from listening to and reading about our leaders, on TV and in the papers?! President Ezra Taft Benson has also said: "Never before in the history of our country has there been a greater need for all of our people to take time to discover what is happening in the world." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 662. Bookcraft, 1988.) He also said, "Our great need in America today is to be alerted and informed . . . There is safety in an informed public. There is real danger in a complacent, uninformed citizenry. This is our real danger today." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 582. Bookcraft, 1988.)
By understanding the lesson of Captain Moroni and Pahoran, at the least, we can learn that not everything that someone "good"--especially the government--tells us, is necessarily true--even if it sounds good and righteous, and refers to science or God as proof. Propaganda has many tools and techniques, and comes in many forms. We cannot rely on three TV stations and two newspapers to give us the complete, unadulterated truth. We must rely on and support other sources that can at least give us more of it. God help the Saints, and all of America, and the world, to understand this, and remember that truth--whatever its source, diligence, observation, love of liberty, and the Spirit are tools that can help us overcome propaganda that can blind, misguide, bind, and control us.



THE END



Footnotes:


(1) "Follow the Brethren," by Elder Neal A. Maxwell. All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, Chapter 7. © Deseret Book.

(2) "Hidden Lessons in the Book of Mormon," by John Bytheway, January 1, 1997.

(3) Heroes from the Book of Mormon, by Bookcraft, as enhanced by Infobases, Inc. 1995.

(4) Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins. Edited with an Introduction by Noel B. Reynolds (Volume Seven In The Religious Studies Monograph Series)

(5) Book of Mormon Compendium, p. 368

(6) "Message Of The First Presidency To The Church," read by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., at the final session of the 112th Annual Conference, Monday, April 6, 1942, in the Assembly Hall, Temple Square, Salt Lake City.

(7) "The Trouble with Pahoran," by Hugh Nibley.

(8) "A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon", by Daniel H. Ludlow.
A Secular History of the Book of Mormon Peoples.

(9) "Types of Literature in the Book of Mormon: Epistles, Psalms, Lamentations," by Sidney B. Sperry. Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1995. Pp. 69–80.

(10) "Warfare and the Book of Mormon," by Hugh Nibley. Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin, eds., Warfare in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book) and FARMS, 1990), 127–45.

(11) http://www.nauvoo.com/vigor/issues/14.html Issue 14 / June 1997, by David Deitrick.

(12) "Things Are Not Always The Way They Appear To Be," by Wendy L. Watson. Brigham Young University-Idaho Devotional, March 19, 2002.

(13) http://baronofdeseret.typepad.com/baronblog/movie/hulk.html, by a "29 year old BYU graduate working as a software engineer in Pleasant Grove, Utah."

(14) "Book of Mormon Studies," by Heather Martinson. http://ochomeschooling.com/bofm/37.html, © 2003.

(15) “Notwithstanding My Weakness,” by Neal A. Maxwell. Ensign, Nov. 1976, 12

(16) “Murmur Not”, by Neal Alma Maxwell. Ensign, Nov. 1989.

(17) http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com/2004_03_14_organicbabyfarm_archive.html

(18) "Moroni and His Captains: A Lesson in Warfare", by Eugene England. January 09, 2002. Printed from Mormon Life (http://deseretbook.com/mormon-life).

(19) www.walden3d.com/nottingham_country_ward/ missionaries/nelson_hr_951001.html

(20) "No Less Serviceable," by Howard W. Hunter. Ensign, Apr. 1992.

(21) "From the Valley of Despair to the Mountain Peaks of Hope," by Harold B. Lee. New Era, Aug. 1971.

(22) "Slow to Anger," by Elder Gordon T. Watts, Quorum of Seventy. Ensign, Feb. 2003.

(23) "That Ye Not Be Offended", by Perry M. Christensen, Ensign, Mar. 1991.

(24) On the website www.cometozarahemla.com, by Richard G. Grant.

(25) “Being Thankworthy,” by Geri Christensen. Ensign, Apr. 2005, 15

(26) http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/Alma/Alma61.htm, by Brant Gardner.

Adam - God Theory

Though this isn't in the Book of Mormon much...

Many have spoken against it recently (relatively speaking), saying it's not right. But few say why. I'll share why it seems quite impossible to me.

First, you can't father yourself:
Moses 6:22 “…the sons of Adam, who was the son of God…”
*Luke 3:38: “which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

Here in the scriptures we see that the Father, the Son, and Adam are three distinct persons:
*Moses 4:28: “And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us to know…”
*D&C 137:3, 5: “I (Joseph) saw…the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.” “I (Joseph) saw Father Adam …”

Another problem is that it (Heavenly Father as Adam dying again) contradicts the standard works:
*Alma 11:45: Amulek talking about the resurrection: “…that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided…that they can see no more corruption.”
*Alma 12:18: Alma: “and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption.”
*D&C 63:49: “…they shall rise from the dead and shall not die after…”
*D&C 88:116: “…and they shall not any more see death.”
*(much later) D&C 138:17: “the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided…”

Even if Adam were translated instead of dying, he would still have to die later.
But, we know that Adam did die:
*Moses 4:25: “until thou shalt return unto the ground—for thou shalt surely die…”
*Genesis 5:5: “…Adam…died.”

Adam had died and was still just a spirit when Christ was to be born; how was he to be the father? And if a spirit, why the need for the Holy Ghost to overshadow Mary?

And wouldn’t the scriptures say something about the reunion between Father and Son in the Spirit World at the Resurrection?

And why would God the Father have to go through this all again, having already gained his exaltation? Especially becoming subject to the will of the devil, to temptations, and sinning. So, the Father has the Son; the Father becomes his own son, or the Son's son (woops, no body, no do); then sins and falls, becomes subject to the devil (“Became subject to will of the devil”: D&C 29:40), then is saved by His Son.

Not to mention that the temple now seems to make it even more impossible to believe this theory.

Comments, discussion?

"0 comments." I had "Comments" turned off (and still might--sorry, not a professional blogger). You can post on www.fairboards.org, and it's possible i'll get it.

Does the Book of Mormon Really Prove "Others"? Part 3

Does the Book of Mormon Really Prove "Others"? Part 3

A Partial Rebuttal of "When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?" by John L. Sorenson, and other similar articles by other authors

by
grego ©2004, 2005

(Part 3)


Sorenson:
"Others" among the Jaredites?
The major focus of this paper, as well as of the Book of Mormon, is the Nephites. A brief look at the Jaredite record is nevertheless worthwhile for what it seems to tell us about demographic processes comparable to those we have discovered in the Nephite record. Moroni's summary of Ether's sketch of Jaredite history is so concise that it is difficult to say much about their population history in relation to Jared's original party, yet a few points stand out. It appears that for the earlier people, too, we must look to "other" groups to account plausibly for the indicated trends and numbers. Figuring the demographic growth of Jared's party requires that we establish how many there were initially. Ether 6:16 indicates that the founding generation consisted of twenty-four males. The brother of Jared sired twenty-two sons and daughters, while Jared had twelve (see Ether 6:20). We can be confident that they had multiple wives.
-----------------
****It seems that plural marriage was alive and well, at least for some:
Ether 1:41: Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and THY FAMILIES; and also JARED THY BROTHER AND HIS FAMILY; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families. [Author: it has been brought to my attention that the first "families" (Ether 1:41)is a printer's error, and that the original reads "family".]

. . .
Ether 14:2: Wherefore EVERY MAN did cleave unto that which was his own, with his hands, and would not borrow neither would he lend; and EVERY MAN kept the hilt of his sword in his right hand, in the defence of his property and HIS OWN LIFE and of HIS WIVES and children.

----------------
Estimating on the basis of these numbers, the original party reasonably could have numbered on the order of eighty adults.28 Not many decades later, when Jared's grandsons, Corihor and Kib, were vigorous political leaders, we read of a "city" in a land, "Nehor," not previously mentioned (see Ether 7:9). This is the earliest "city" in the entire Book of Mormon record, yet no city is ever mentioned in the land of Moron, the capital "where the king [in Jared's line] dwelt" (Ether 7:5). Even if half the descendants from those of the eight barges had inexplicably settled in Nehor, the highest number we can imagine for them at this early date would be, say, a hundred people in the "city" and its land. That number could not have made any "city." Then one generation later, "the people [as a whole] had become exceeding numerous" (Ether 7:11). The scale of population suggested by these statements calls for "other" groups to have been incorporated under Jaredite rule. Continued extraordinary population dynamics followed. In the next generation war resulted in destruction of "all the people of the kingdom . . . save it were thirty souls, and they who fled with the house of Omer" (Ether 9:12). Yet two kings later we read of the building of "many mighty cities" (Ether 9:23).
----------------
****It seems that lifespans were longer, and the youngest son became king when his father the king died--which really stretches it out. Kings could easily have 80 years between them. Also, with people living longer, more people are alive at the same time, and propagating longer, especially if they havd multiple wives.

---------------
Before long, drought caused the death of the king Heth "and all his household" except Shez (Ether 10:1-2). Quickly they again built up "many cities . . . and the people began again to spread over all the face of the land" (Ether 10:4). Centuries later, two million "mighty men, and also their wives and their children" (Ether 15:2) were slain while further warring armies and civilian supporters yet remained. I find it not credible that these roller-coaster numbers could result strictly from the demographics of an original party of eighty adults. As with the peoples reported in the Nephites' own record, a simpler and more compelling explanation is that groups not descended from the immigrant party were involved. If so, "the Jaredites" would have consisted of a combination of groups with cultures and languages beyond those descended from the settlers on the first barges. But the picture is left unclear because Ether, a direct descendant of Jared, gives us only his line's history rather than an account of all the inhabitants of the land (consider, for example, Ether 10:30-31).29 Furthermore, we have access only to Moroni's summary covering Ether's necessarily short history of thousands of years. When all the considerations we have reviewed are weighed, I find it inescapable that there were substantial populations in the "promised land" throughout the period of the Nephite record, and probably in the Jaredite era also. The status and origin of these peoples is never made clear because the writers never set out to do any such thing; they had other purposes. Yet we cannot understand the demographic or cultural history of Lehi's literal descendants without taking into account those other groups, too. Hereafter, readers will not be justified in saying that the record fails to mention "others" but only that we readers have hitherto failed to observe what is said and implied about such people in the Book of Mormon. This is one more instance in which we see that much remains in that ancient record which we should try to elucidate by diligent analysis.
-----------------
Other points to consider:
This author:
I think the best support for others in the land is found in Alma 50:29-32, especially verse 32: "Now behold, the people who were in the land Bountiful, or rather Moroni, feared that THEY would hearken to the words of Morianton and UNITE with HIS PEOPLE, and THUS HE WOULD OBTAIN POSSESSION OF THOSE PARTS OF THE LAND, which would lay a foundation for serious consequences among the people of Nephi, yea, which consequences would lead to the overthrow of their liberty. It sounds like somebody's up there, and this is before the migrations northward in Alma 63.
Helaman 11:5, 6 says that there was a famine in the land, and that thousands perished. If there were others, and there was trade, this shouldn't have been such a big problem--they could easily have gotten food, like Jacob's family in the Old Testament who got food from Egypt during famine.
It is not to say that other peoples or races being there and there being intermingling, is impossible. The two major things that I can find that might suggest this view of outside groups is that:
1. the Nephite prophets do an awful lot of preaching and baptizing for a group that's supposedly already members, and
2. the Lamanites seem to have a great supply of warriors, even after suffering great losses.
However, we must remember what happened at the time of king Benjamin:
"NOW it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe the tradition of their fathers."
"They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ."
"And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened."
"And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church. And they were a separate people as to their faith, and remained so ever after, even in their carnal and sinful state; for they would not call upon the Lord their God."
"And now in the reign of Mosiah they were not half so numerous as the people of God; but because of the dissensions among the brethren they became more numerous."
"For it came to pass that they did deceive many with their flattering words, who were in the church, and did cause them to commit many sins; therefore it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church"
(Mosiah 26:1-6). MANY of the rising generation of Nephites at that time were nonmembers, and through dissension, and sin (and therefore excommunication), they numbered more than the Nephites. These people and their posterity could explain a lot of where the baptisms came from.
Also, there could have been many due to rebaptizings of at faithful members, such as in early modern church history; passages that don't seem to support that, such as in Helaman 3, could be from rebaptizings of Nephite dissenters, excommunicated members, etc.
The strongest point is the population numbers, especially with all the population setbacks--that is, the Nephites continually move over to the Lamanite side, which helps answer the Lamanite population problem; but what about the Nephite side?
****King Benjamin, speaking to Mosiah, says: "My son, I would that ye should make a proclamation THROUGHOUT ALL THIS LAND AMONG ALL THIS PEOPLE, OR THE PEOPLE OF ZARAHEMLA, AND THE PEOPLE OF MOSIAH WHO DWELL IN THE LAND (the people that his father Mosiah had led out of the land of Nephi), that thereby they may BE GATHERED TOGETHER; for ON THE MORROW I shall proclaim unto this my people out of mine own mouth that thou art a king and a ruler over this people, whom the Lord our God hath given us" (Mosiah 1:10).
This sounds like a small group of people--pass the message to everyone so they can be there the next day. However, in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, "morrow" means "The day next after the present"; "The next day subsequent to any day specified". Thus, it might be read or said in a different way: "gather together the people; the day after they are all gathered, I shall proclaim. . ."
King Benjamin says:
"And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may BE DISTINGUISHED ABOVE ALL THE PEOPLE WHICH THE LORD GOD HATH BROUGHT OUT OF THE LAND OF JERUSALEM. . ." (Mosiah 1:11). Does this just mean a name to distinguish them from the Lamanites? That would seem like big trouble to say when he could have said "Lamanites".
In keeping to the text of Moses, the Exodus, the Lehite exodus and the "promised land" (1 Nephi 17:32-38), it is probable that other peoples had been cleared out to prepare the way for the Lehites, though this is what happened with the Jaredites.
Other races/ groups could easily have been on the continents. The Lord says that 1 Nephi 17:38: "And he leadeth away the righteous into precious lands. . .", and in 2 Nephi 10:22: ". . .the Lord God has led away from time to time from the house of Israel, according to his will and pleasure." Also, 1 Nephi 22:3-4: ". . .house of Israel. . .will be scattered upon all the face of the earth, and also among all nations. . .there are many who are already lost from the knowledge of those who are at Jerusalem. . . and they are scattered to and fro upon the isles of the sea. . ." (And this was long before Hagoth.) And, Lehi, in 2 Nephi 1:5-7: "But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted THIS LAND unto me, and to my children forever, and ALSO ALL THOSE WHO SHOULD BE LED OUT OF OTHER COUNTRIES BY THE HAND OF THE LORD. 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. Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring."
Lehi clearly says that others will be led by the Lord to the promised land; and not just from Jerusalem/ Israel, but from other countries. Though there might have been other groups there, there is no need to say that they always interacted. For instance, look att the Nephites and the Mulekites. They were nearby for perhaps 300 years, yet didn't know it.
Could Coriantumr have told the Mulekites about the Jaredites, or left them records, or taught them some of the language, or perhaps even had children with a Mulekite woman, and named them, even though he only lived with the Mulekites for nine moons? Possibly. Of course, there is the problem of language--I assume that they spoke, surely wrote very different ones. Was there a Jaredite influence? Yes. Remember the stone (and maybe more) that the Mulekites gave King Mosiah (the First)? Did perhaps Coriantumr provide a key to the Mulekites for his language? Or, were the records of earlier times much better in the Brass Plates, and in the records of the Jaredites? Isn't it possible that there might be a reason other than having to have lots of leftover Jaredites?
We see that King Mosiah and the Nephites taught the Mulekites the language of the Nephites. But hadn't both groups come from Jerusalem? They didn't have a written record. Neither did the Lamanites. So, when the Amulonites taught the Lamanites the language of the Nephites, it was probably speaking, too. The Mulekites needing to learn happened a lot earlier than the Lamanites. And, there is no mention of a record kept among the Lamanites; in fact, that might have been one reason that Laman and Lemuel were mad that Nephi had taken the Brass Plates--they were the only written (language) record that the group had.
----------------

CONCLUSION
****I believe it has been shown that most "proofs" for "others" that have been given up to this point, by all the authors covered, are actually weak. Unless someone can show to the contrary, I believe that this response justifies one in saying that the Book of Mormon still fails to mention others, though it shows that that possibility exists, and is not excluded.
I agree completely with Sorenson that "this is one more instance in which we see that much remains in that ancient record which we should try to elucidate by diligent analysis." However, I hope that future articles on this topic by all will not "fail to observe what" ACTUALLY "is said about [others] in the Book of Mormon" instead of trying to prove from and in the Book of Mormon what their science has already told them "is true". I am saddened by the public lack of scholarship and honesty from those who work for the Church, supposedly to bring new light to the scriptures. Too many times the interpretation is "A" and definitely not "B" when convenient, but then later "B" and definitely not "A" when convenient. This flip-flopping for convenience while trying to prove points makes for shaky argument. In addition, much of the language used in many places in the articles is outrageously overbearing (especially for research), illogical, and even (almost) blasphemous (like when saying what the Lord "should" do). In too many instances in these articles, the answer or an other strong possiblility to a point is found immediately in the preceding or following verse, or, sometimes, even in the same verse itself! To use theories, suppositions, possibilities, suggestions, beliefs, and even pure speculation, and yet write as if everything proposed is an absolute fact, and then drawing conclusions from these "facts" as if they were completely necessary and evident, is so far out of line with writing an article on this subject with the information available in the Book of Mormon that it is unapologetically unacceptable. This reeks of typical unethical and dishonest method of operation and sloppy work of anti-Mormon critics. Now we see it in FARMS--an official part of Brigham Young University, an official university of the Church. Regrettable. What is more regrettable is that these articles are kept up on the internet and available for all to read; and then, responses are muffled (always), updates are rare, and I have yet to see any apology to anyone outside the group or even an acceptance of being wrong or merely too assuming. It makes me wonder if any form of peer-review or editing occurs to any of the articles written by contributing FARM authors.
It is unnecessary--completely--to our faith or credence to follow those methods, though some might want to. I do not claim to understand this agenda. Perhaps I am not learned enough. To me, if there is a proof, there is; if there isn't, it isn't. Possiblilities may exist, whether I am personally for it or not. (Though in the search for truth, I don't understand how you can be for something or not.) What make this more frightening is that this is done on a topic that is doesn't seem to be in response to any heavy anti-gospel, anti-Church propaganda. Trying to force a personal feeling or false agenda on others, by wresting the scriptures to our personal interpretation and by having dishonest dialogue, is a form of spiritual Nehorism. Luckily, this is happening with a topic that doesn't matter much for our salvation; otherwise, it would be extremely wise to heed a few exhortations from Alma: ". . .Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction" (Alma 13:20). . . "AND now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing. . ." (Alma 41:1).
Finally, I challenge FARMS to open a discussion board on every article that they write and post, and every article/ book/ etc. that they criticize or make negative remarks about. It seems quite unfair for a Church paid scholarly foundation to shoot others down and then hide behind a Church wall, allowing church members to read (and believe) only their scholarship. That's like shooting arrows from inside a church, while at the same time crying "Sanctuary!" How long will the people inside that they're supposed to be protecting get the feeling that something is wrong? FARMS, let your scholarship be openly proven, and it will no doubt be better for everyone.
I would very much like to hear anything else, from anyone (whether you are FARMS or not, whether you have a PhD or not), that is evidence for others in the land interacting with the Lehites.

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

Sorenson:
Notes 1. John L. Sorenson, "The composition of Lehi's Family," in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:174-96. 2. The numbers are in question particularly because we are not told how many years elapsed between the party's arrival in Bountiful and their splitting apart in the land of first inheritance in America. Before his death, Lehi said of his son Jacob, "thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory" (2 Nephi 2:4). The probable Hebrew expression translated to English as "youth" indicates an age between ten or twelve at the low end ranging into the twenties. Given the fact that Lehi was already "aged" aboard ship, during which time Jacob was still a child needing to be "nourished" (1 Nephi 18:19), it seems unlikely that Lehi's statement to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2 would have been many years later. Supposing two years aboard ship and two at the original landing site they planted and harvested at least one crop--then Jacob could plausibly have been about twelve in Lehi's reference to his "youth." 3. Compare, for example, George Cowgill, "On Causes and Consequences of Ancient and Modern Population Changes," American Anthropologist 77 (1975): 505-25: "Surges implying rates of natural increase of from 3 to 7 per 1000 per year over regions up to some tens of thousands of square kilometers, sustained over two or three centuries . . . have not been uncommon during the past few thousand years, but they are interspersed with periods of very slow growth or decline. Overall regional trends spanning a millennium or more show net population gains that are rarely more than what would have resulted from a steady rate of increase of 1 or 2 per 1000 per year. . . . It seems that rates of natural increase greater than about 6 or 7 per 1000 per year have occurred only very briefly and locally." At a rate of natural increase (births minus deaths) of a phenomenal 7 per 1000 population, the original 24 in the Nephite group would have doubled to 48 in 100 years, long after Jacob's death. Using the same rate, by the time of Jacob's encounter with Sherem the total number of adult Nephite males would not have exceeded ten--all of whom would have been relatives and all of whom would have known each other intimately. Of course Cowgill's numbers could be wrong, but where are the historical cases for colonizing groups under similar conditions that might contradict his findings? Without such cases we are left to pluck numbers out of the air. 4. Anthony W. Ivins, "Are the Jaredites an Extinct People?" Improvement Era 6 (November 1902): 43-44; cf. Omni 1:21. 5. See John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985), 54. 6. The position of chief judge no doubt continued many of the key political functions of the former kings and perhaps in some form even the regal title "Nephi." Note that the chief judge was said to "reign" (Alma 7:2), and as head of state he personally led the Nephite armies (cf. Alma 2:16 with Words of Mormon 1:13). Some of the trappings of the monarchy likely also continued under the system of judges, considering the reference to "thrones" (reflected in Alma 60:7, 11, and 21, and likely Helaman 6:19). Consider also the telling title applied in Alma 60:24 to the chief judge: "the great head of our government." 7. John L. Sorenson, "The 'Mulekites,' " BYU Studies 30 (1990): 6-22. 8. The argument and citations are in the section called "The Expansion of Zarahemla," in Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 190-97. 9. The Nephites had "taken possession of all the northern parts of the land . . . even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful" and then had "inhabited" that area as a strategic measure (see Alma 22:29, 33). But some remnants of the "Mulekites," though not of "the people of Zarahemla," must already have lived there, for that would be the general area where they encountered the wounded Jaredite ruler, Coriantumr. See Sorenson, "The 'Mulekites,' " 13-14. The city Bountiful, like the cities of Mulek, Gid, and Omner, was in existence before the Nephites cleared out the Lamanite squatters in that section of wilderness and fortified the zone (see Alma 50:13-15). They founded garrison cities which the text names, but Bountiful, Mulek, Gid, and Omner, the cities nearest to the land northward, were evidently already in place, for their founding is not mentioned. Instead "the land Bountiful" was already a fact in Nephite geography (Alma 50:11). 10. See Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 196-97, and my "The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book," FARMS 1990, 245. 11. As I pointed out in "The 'Mulekites,' " 10, it is likely that there would not have been women aboard for most or all of the crew. For those men to reproduce, as is implied in the expression "exceeding numerous" in Omni, they would have had to find and take "native" or "other" women. 12. See, initially, Morris Swadesh, "Linguistics as an Instrument of Prehistory," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15 (1959): 20-35; Dell Hymes, "Lexicostatistics So Far," Current Anthropology 1 (1960): 3-44, and also 5 (1964): 324-26. For later critiques and modifications, consult "lexicostatistics" and "glottochronology" in the index to John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish, Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, vol. 2 (Provo: Research Press, 1990). 13. Historical cases are numerous, but the most obvious may be the Manchu rulers over China, who became completely Sinicized, and the Nahuat- speaking "Toltecs" who invaded highland Guatemala as reported in the Popol Vuh. See Robert M. Carmack, "Toltec Influence on the Postclassic Culture History of Highland Guatemala," in Archaeological Studies in Middle America (Tulane University Middle American Research Institute Publication 26, 1970), 49-92. 14. Robert F. Smith, "Some 'Neologisms' from the Mormon Canon" in Conference on the Language of the Mormons, May 31, 1973 (Brigham Young University Language Research Center, 1973), 64-68; and personal communication. 15. Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/ There Were Jaredites, vol. 5 in The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 245. One wonders what considerations led Alma the younger to give two, and perhaps all three, of his sons Jaredite names: Shiblon and Corianton are unquestionably so, and Helaman could be. Perhaps they had been born and received their names during Alma's "idolatrous" phase (see Mosiah 27:8). I suppose that the idolatrous cult in which he was involved was old, ultimately Jaredite-derived, and common in Nephite society, in the broad sense, thanks to transmission through elements among the people of Zarahemla. 16. Ibid., 246. 17. B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1909), 3:137-38; J. M. Sjodahl, An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1927), 77-78. 18. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 250-51; cf. Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938), 267. 19. Ibid., 251. 20. Sorenson, "The 'Mulekites,' " 12; Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 18-19. 21. It is best viewed in an artist's reconstruction of the scene on the presently damaged stone pictured in Michael D. Coe, America's First Civilization (New York: American Heritage, 1968), 58-59. 22. Tatiana Proskouriakoff, "Olmec and Maya Art: Problems of Their Stylistic Relation," in Elizabeth P. Benson, ed., Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, October 28th and 29th, 1967 (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1968), 121. 23. For additional relevant material, see Constance Irwin, Fair Gods and Stone Faces (New York: St. Martin's, 1963); Alejandro von Wuthenau, Unexpected Faces in Ancient America, 1500 B.C.-A.D. 1500 (New York: Crown, 1975); and L. Gonzalez Calderón, Cabecitas Olmecas, Coatzacoalcos, México: privately printed, 1977). 24. See Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 90-91. The prejudice is clearly seen in Mosiah 9:1-2; Alma 26:23-25; and Helaman 14:10. 25. On this correlation there are a number of discussions in the literature, e.g., C. Daryll Forde, Habitat, Economy and Society: A Geographical Introduction to Ethnology, 8th ed. (London: Methuen, 1968). 26. Nibley's picture of Jaredite nomads running around North America while also building cities (see Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 225 and 419-20) may be cited against the picture here presented. But it is based on a selective and incomplete reading of the book of Ether and has no factual basis in history, tradition, or archaeology anywhere in the pre-Columbian New World; cf. Bruce W. Warren, Review of Hugh Nibley's The World of the Jaredites, in University Archaeological Society Newsletter 27 (June 1955): 1-6. In fact, Nibley grants that his paradigmatic "heroic city" of the nomads of Central Asia depended on settled populations of farmers (Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 226). 27. See Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 193-94.

Does the Book of Mormon Really Prove "Others"? Part 2

A Partial Rebuttal of "When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?" by John L. Sorenson, and other similar articles by other authors

by
grego ©2004, 2005

(Part 2)



Sorenson:

Internal Variety among the Nephites

We are not left only to supposition and inference in this matter. There are statements in the Nephite record that positively inform us that "others" were on the scene and further passages that hint at the same thing.
-------------
****We will see how "positively" we are informed in just a moment.
--------------
One of these statements 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). We may wonder about those whom they considered not their "brethren." Apparently he was speaking of those who were neither Nephites, Lamanites, nor "Mulekites." People in all those three categories are referred to in the text by Nephites as "brethren" (see, for example, Mosiah 1:5 and 7:2, 13 and Alma 24:7-8).
------------------
****Here the writer says that we must limit usage based on the text, yet in other circumstances when it's not convenient, we needn't do so. Unless the text seems pretty clear that one interpretation is to be held, by multiple usage in multiple circumstances, there is no need to be extrememly strict.
We must also see if there are other times when other definitions of "brethren" are used--and yes, there are!
"Brethren" most likely means they were church members/ former church members who had dissented and joined nonmembers to live as Zoramites. We read in Alma 31:8 that "Now the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites; therefore THEY HAD HAD THE WORD OF GOD PREACHED UNTO THEM." It's quite reasonable, and likely, that the previous members who left the church and the major group of Nephites mixed with nonmembers and the two groups became the Zoramites; it's difficult to imagine that every member of the Zoramites had been previous members of the church of Christ. Amulek, in Alma 34:2, says: "MY BRETHREN, I think that it is impossible that ye should be ignorant of the things which have been spoken concerning the coming of Christ, who is taught by us to be the Son of God; yea, I KNOW THAT THESE THINGS WERE TAUGHT UNTO YOU BOUNTIFULLY BEFORE YOUR DISSENSION FROM AMONG US."
In another instance, with the people living in Ammonihah, we see that:
Alma 14:1: "And it came to pass after he had made an end of speaking unto the people many of them did believe on his words, and BEGAN TO REPENT, AND TO SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES.
Alma 14:8: And they brought their WIVES AND CHILDREN TOGETHER, AND WHOSOEVER BELIEVED OR HAD BEEN TAUGHT TO BELIEVE IN THE WORD OF GOD they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and THEY ALSO BROUGHT FORTH THEIR RECORDS WHICH CONTAINED THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, AND CAST THEM INTO THE FIRE ALSO, THAT THEY MIGHT BE BURNED AND DESTROYED BY FIRE."
It sounds like many of them still had the scriptures with them.
In further support of this point of view, let's look at Alma 48:
Alma 48:21
"But, as I have said, in the latter end of the nineteenth year, yea, notwithstanding their peace amongst themselves, they were compelled reluctantly to contend with THEIR BRETHREN, THE LAMANITES."
Alma 48:24
"Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of THOSE WHO WERE ONCE THEIR BRETHREN, yea, and HAD DISSENTED FROM THEIR CHURCH, and had LEFT THEM AND HAD GONE TO DESTROY THEM BY JOINING THE LAMANITES."
Here, brethren is used in two ways. First, with the Lamanites, it is used with regards to lineage; then, in verse 24, it means "church brethren".
Also, Alma, while preaching to the people in Ammonihah, says:
Alma 9:9: Do ye not remember that OUR FATHER, LEHI, was brought out of Jerusalem by the hand of God? Do ye not remember that they were all led by him through the wilderness?
Alma 9:10: And have ye forgotten so soon how many times he delivered OUR FATHERS out of the hands of their enemies, and preserved them from being destroyed, EVEN BY THE HANDS OF THEIR OWN BRETHREN?
Alma 9:11: Yea, and if it had not been for his matchless power, and his mercy, and his long-suffering TOWARDS US, WE should unavoidably have been cut off from the face of the earth long before this period of time, and perhaps been consigned to a state of endless misery and woe.
It sounds like Alma was preaching to related descendants, not strangers or outsiders.
Also, note that in Alma 9:10, it's "by the hands of their own brethren. . ."--not others.
(Similar discourse follows:
Alma 9:19: For he will not suffer you that ye shall live in your iniquities, to destroy his people (DS NOTE: "his people--" does this mean the Nephite nation, or members of the Church?). I say unto you, Nay; he would rather suffer that the Lamanites might destroy all his people who are called the people of Nephi (every one of the Nephites?), if it were possible that they could fall into sins and transgressions, after having had so much light and so much knowledge given unto them of the Lord their God;
Alma 9:20: Yea, after having been such a highly favored people of the Lord; yea, after having been favored above every other nation, kindred, tongue, or people; after having had all things made known unto them, according to their desires, and their faith, and prayers, of that which has been, and which is, and which is to come;
Alma 9:21: Having been visited by the Spirit of God; having conversed with angels, and having been spoken unto by the voice of the Lord; and having the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and also many gifts, the gift of speaking with tongues, and the gift of preaching, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the gift of translation;
Alma 9:22: Yea, and after having been delivered of God out of the land of Jerusalem, by the hand of the Lord; having been saved from famine, and from sickness, and all manner of diseases of every kind; and they having waxed strong in battle, that they might not be destroyed; having been brought out of bondage time after time, and having been kept and preserved until now; and they have been prospered until they are rich in all manner of things--
Alma 9:23: And now behold I say unto you, that if this people, who have received so many blessings from the hand of the Lord, should transgress contrary to the light and knowledge which they do have, I say unto you that if this be the case, that if they should fall into transgression, it would be far more tolerable for the Lamanites than for them.
Alma 9:24: For behold, the promises of the Lord are extended to the Lamanites, but they are not unto you if ye transgress; for has not the Lord expressly promised and firmly decreed, that if ye will rebel against him that ye shall utterly be destroyed from off the face of the earth?")
And, have you ever called a nonmember who is listening to your preaching, especially an investigator, "Brother" So-and-so?
Look at how Ammon uses it in Alma 17:30-31: "And now, these were the thoughts of Ammon, when he saw the afflictions of THOSE WHOM HE TERMED TO BE HIS BRETHREN."
"And it came to pass that he flattered them by his words, saying: MY BRETHREN. . ."
As these were nonmember Lamanites, this seems to be clearly by lineage.
Then, this use of "brethren": Alma 27:8: "And the KING [OF THE CONVERTED LAMANITES] said unto him (Ammon): Yea, if the Lord saith unto us go, WE will go down unto OUR BRETHREN, and we will be their slaves until we repair unto them the many murders and sins which we have committed against them."
These "brethren" were Nephites; thus, the meaning that seems most plausible is "church brothers/ brothers in Christ". Or, here it could have also meant "relatives" from Lehi.
Here is another example of "brethren": Alma 18:6: "For he had slain many of them because THEIR BRETHREN had scattered their flocks at the place of water; and thus, because they had had their flocks scattered they were slain.
----------------------
Another statement indicates that even the Jaredites were counted as "brethren." In Alma 46:22, captain Moroni has his followers "covenant with our God, that we shall be destroyed, even as our brethren in the land northward, if we shall fall into transgression." Unquestionably, the reference is to the Jaredites. The only reason apparent to me why the term "brethren" would be applied by Nephites to Jaredites is because the former recognized that some of the people living with them were descended from the Jaredites. Interestingly, Anthony W. Ivins, who later became a counselor in the First Presidency of the Church, speculated ninety years ago that Coriantumr, the final Jaredite king, survived among the people of Zarahemla long enough to sire descendants.4 (Incidentally, in Hebrew the name Moroni means "one from Moron," which was the Jaredite capital.)
----------------------
****There's another reason apparent to me--the same holds as mentioned right above--the Jaredites were also once a people of God (who were destroyed by their transgression).
Would you call the saints during the time of Christ, or the Restoration, "brethren"? Have you ever said, "Brother Joseph" or "Brother Brigham"? Is that because they were your forefathers? Not in any way, for most of us, and yet we still say it, and not because there might be some among us who are their descendants.
---------------------
An odd bit of behavior involving the younger Alma on his teaching tour seems to alert us to the presence of "others" at the city of Ammonihah. At that time this was a rather remote part of the land of Zarahemla in the direction of the west sea and the narrow neck of land. At first discouraged at the hostile reception he received, Alma departed, only to be ordered back by an angel (see Alma 8:14-17). When he returned he asked food of a stranger. This proved to be Amulek, whose odd reply was, "I am a Nephite" (Alma 8:20). Why would he say that? Wasn't it obvious? Clearly Amulek had recognized Alma as a Nephite, either by his speech, his appearance, or perhaps the way he had referred to God when he opened the conversation. But to what other social or ethnic category might Amulek have belonged? His abrupt statement makes sense only if most of the people of the place were not Nephites and also if Amulek's characteristics did not make it already apparent to Alma that he was a Nephite.
-------------------
****"I am a Nephite" (Alma 8:20):
First of all, the city of Ammonihah was definitely a Nephite city--by rule. Everyone there was a Nephite, under Nephite rule. If one were to only admit the use of "Nephite" as a political one, as sometimes seems to be the case while reading some articles, then there is a bigger problem here than originally thought.
Let's take a look at the situation at Ammonihah:
The people of Ammonihah (at least some, though it seems like most or all is more like it) were 1. strongly under the spirit of Satan (and Alma seemed to have understood this before going there); 2. not of the church at that time (Alma 8:12); 3. studied to destroy the liberty of Alma's people (political or religious?) (Alma 8:17), which was 3. unlawful, both civily and in the sight of God (Alma 8:17). They might have been under Nephite rule but very resentful of it, and thus the studying to get out from under it, or take over the rule, or whatever. Perhaps they were a group of dissenters who had followed their leader, Ammonihah. Is it possible that they were mainly Mulekites, or another people? It doesn't seem so--while Alma, speaking to them, asks them to REMEMBER: "the tradition of your fathers" and "the commandments of God" (Alma 9:8), he then asks them to remember how God led "OUR FATHER, LEHI" out of Jerusalem and through the wilderness (Alma 9:9); how God had "delivered OUR FATHERS out of the hands of their enemies, and preserved them from being destroyed, even by the hands of THEIR OWN BRETHREN (Alma 9:10). Alma then continues to differentiate the Ammonihahites from the Lamanites, and instead group them with the Nephites (see Alma 9:18-24), linking them--once more--to the complete Nephite history in the process.
Let's look at verses 18 and 19 again:
We see from Alma's experiences there that they already didn't fear to break the laws of the land--the local judge ordered people killed, especially for just believing the word of God, and it happened according to his word.
So, Amulek might have been stressing that one who hated Nephites, or a true dissenter, or one of those very involved in the study of overthrow, or, perhaps in the best words, one who was a "true Ammonihahite" would have thrown Alma out; but he, Amulek, was a "true Nephite"--one who wanted to be faithful to the traditions and commandments of his father, Nephi, and/ or one who put the Nephites above the Ammonihahites--that is, country over city. In particular, remember that Amulek's reply was to this question of Alma:
"And as [Alma] entered the city he was an hungered, and he said to a [Amulek]: Will ye give to an humble servant of God something to eat?" (Alma 8:19)
Saying he was a Nephite in this context seems to say something about the spiritual side of life, not otherwise.
The following seems to support this, too:
Alma 10:2: I AM AMULEK; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi; and it was the same AMINADI who INTERPRETED THE WRITING which was upon the wall of the TEMPLE, which was WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD.
Alma 10:3: And AMINADI was a DESCENDANT OF NEPHI, WHO WAS THE SON OF LEHI, WHO CAME OUT OF THE LAND OF JERUSALEM, who was a descendant of MANASSEH, WHO WAS THE SON OF JOSEPH WHO WAS SOLD INTO EGYPT BY THE HANDS OF HIS BRETHREN." In other words, Amulek was a straight and true descendant of Nephi--this was of lineage, not of the people of Nephi, nor political. It seems that by using this term, he implies that he is no stranger to the gospel and church, and therefore should know of spiritual things. (In Alma 10:6, Amulek says: "Nevertheless, I did harden my heart, FOR I WAS CALLED MANY TIMES AND I WOULD NOT HEAR; therefore I knew concerning these things, yet I would not know; therefore I went on rebelling against God, in the wickedness of my heart. . .) Similarly, Mormon says this: "And I, Mormon, BEING A DESCENDANT OF NEPHI, (and my father's name was Mormon) I remembered the things which Ammaron commanded me." (Mormon 1:5) Mormon somehow relates being a descendant of Nephi with remembering Ammaron's commands. Mormon also writes: "Behold, I make an end of speaking concerning this people. I am the son of Mormon, and MY FATHER WAS A DESCENDANT OF NEPHI." (Mormon 8:13) These all seem to imply the same thing: that being a descendant of Nephi brought up memories of Nephi and who he was and who he stood for--God and his gospel.
What if a prophet went to a group of apostates in Utah, and he met a guy who said: "I am a Mormon." Somewhat similar, I would imagine.
---------------------
The incompleteness of our picture of social and population history is further shown in the story of the entry of Ammon's party to Zeniffite King Limhi's territory. The Nephite explorers stumbled upon the king outside the walls of his beleaguered city, Lehi-Nephi, and were rudely seized and thrown into prison. Only after two days did they get a chance to identify themselves and explain their presence. We might have supposed that their cultural status as Nephites and strangers, if not their protestations (was there a language problem?) would have alerted Limhi and his guards as to their identity--Nephites from Zarahemla. Had the initial encounter gone as we might have thought, Ammon's belated explanation (see Mosiah 7:13) and Limhi's surprise when Ammon finally got through to him (see Mosiah 7:14) would both have been short-circuited. Why were Ammon and company not recognized immediately as Nephites? Was their costume and tongue or accent so much different than what Limhi's people expected of a Nephite that this put them off? Ammon was a "descendant of Zarahemla" (Mosiah 7:13), a point that he emphasized in his introduction to the king. Does this mean that he somehow looked different than a "typical" Nephite? Or had the Zeniffites had encounters with other non-Nephite types in their area which might have prompted Limhi's cautious reception? And what personal relationship had Ammon to the Zeniffites, after all? As a person descended from Zarahemla, that is, a "Mulekite," why did he refer to Zeniff's presumably Nephite party as "our brethren" and show them so much concern that he would lead this arduous expedition to find out their fate?
-----------------
****Let's take a look at what the Book of Mormon says:
Mosiah 21:19
And the KING HIMSELF DID NOT TRUST HIS PERSON WITHOUT THE WALLS OF THE CITY, unless he took his guards with him, FEARING THAT HE MIGHT BY SOME MEANS FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE LAMANITES.
Mosiah 21:20: And he caused that his people should watch the land round about, that by some means they might TAKE THOSE PRIESTS THAT FLED INTO THE WILDERNESS. . .
Mosiah 21:21: For they were desirous to take them that they might punish them; for THEY HAD COME INTO THE LAND OF NEPHI by night, and carried off their grain and many of their precious things; THEREFORE THEY LAID WAIT FOR THEM.
Mosiah 21:23: AND THE KING HAVING BEEN WITHOUT THE GATES OF THE CITY WITH HIS GUARD, DISCOVERED AMMON AND HIS BRETHREN; and SUPPOSING THEM TO BE PRIESTS OF NOAH THEREFORE HE CAUSED THAT THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN, AND BOUND, AND CAST INTO PRISON. . .
Mosiah 21:24: But when he found that they were not, but that they were his brethren, and had come from the land of Zarahemla, he was filled with exceedingly great joy.
Mosiah 21:25: Now king Limhi had sent, previous to the coming of Ammon, a small number of men to search for the land of Zarahemla; but they could not find it, and they were lost in the wilderness.
Mosiah 21:26: Nevertheless, they did find a land which had been peopled; yea, a land which was covered with dry bones; yea, A LAND WHICH HAD BEEN PEOPLED AND WHICH HAD BEEN DESTROYED; AND THEY, HAVING SUPPOSED IT TO BE THE LAND OF ZARAHEMLA, returned to the land of Nephi, HAVING ARRIVED IN THE BORDERS OF THE LAND NOT MANY DAYS BEFORE THE COMING OF AMMON.
We see the reason he was happy to see them: he had thought that Zarahemla had been destroyed, but found out that it, and his brethren, still existed. We also see that King Limhi thought that Ammon and his brethren were the priests of Noah--in other words, they were, in appearance, just like them--which is why he threw them in prison. Remember, not that much time had passed between the leaving of King Zeniff and this reunion.
----------------
The social, political, ethnic, and language relationships involved in this business are not straightforward, to say the least. An analysis of the terminology applied to peoples in the Book of Mormon could reveal useful information on this subject. This is not the place to do that fully, but the approach can be sketched and some of the results anticipated. References to the key people of the record vary: (1) "Nephite(s)" or "the Nephites" occurs 339 times; (2) "people of the Nephites," 18 times; (3) "people of Nephi," 4 times; (4) "children of Nephi," twice, and (5) "descendants of Nephi," twice. Usage of the second and third expressions gives us something to ponder about the composition of the people referred to. The meaning of the first expression is made clear early by Jacob when he says, "those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites." Then he continues the definition in an interesting way: ". . . or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:14). A few lines earlier Jacob had reported that when Nephi anticipated his own death, he had designated "a [successor] king and a ruler over his people . . . according to the reigns of the kings. . . . And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever [personal] name they would" (Jacob 1:9, 11). Jacob here makes clear that his definition of "Nephites, or the people of Nephi" hinges on political allegiance to a king, a king who always bore the title "Nephi." This definition does not depend at all on whether "Nephites" were or were not literal descendants from Nephi, nor whether they had Sam, Jacob, Joseph, or Zoram, the founding fathers of the group, among their ancestors. In fact Jacob's terminology may refer to the original father Nephi only indirectly. What he says in 11, where the term "Nephites" is first used, is that those classified under that term were simply all who were ruled by the existing monarch, the current "Nephi." No reason is evident to me to believe that in the 338 usages after Jacob begins the practice that "Nephite(s)" means anything else. It is essentially a sociopolitical, not an ethnic or linguistic, label. Cases where the text reports that political allegiance changed are consistent with this notion. Thus the children who had been fathered, then abandoned, by the renegade priests of Noah chose to "be numbered among those who were called Nephites" (Mosiah 25:12). That is, when they came under the sovereignty of the current head of the Nephite government, they both gave their allegiance to him and changed their group label to "Nephites."
-----------------
****"No reason is evident to me to believe that in the 338 usages after Jacob begins the practice that "Nephite(s)" means anything else." Wow. 338 times, and it all means the same exact thing? Was this checked, or assumed? I won't check it, and I seriously doubt that anyone else checked it. Jacob 1:13--two verses later--seems to immediately show that this theory isn't very strong. Then, for example, see 4 Nephi 1:36, 37; Mormon 1:8, 9. Once more, we see who makes up the "Nephites".
It is interesting to note that King Mosiah, though king of the Nephites, was not named "Nephi"; neither his son Benjamin, nor Benjamin's son Mosiah. And this was before the mixing with the people of Zarahemla.
Out of curiosity, how come "people of Laman" is not used in the Book of Mormon?
----------------
In a parallel case earlier, "all the people of Zarahemla were numbered with the Nephites, and this because the kingdom had been conferred upon none but those who were descendants of Nephi" (Mosiah 25:13). Conversely, when Amlici and his followers rebelled against Nephite rule and "did consecrate Amlici to be their king," they took a unique group name to mark the political rebellion, "being called Amlicites" (Alma 2:9). Meanwhile "the remainder"--those loyal to Alma, the continuing official ruler--"were [still] called Nephites" (Mosiah 25:11). Again, when the Zoramites transferred allegiance from the Nephite government to the Lamanite side, they "became Lamanites" (Alma 43:4, 6). We see, then, that the Nephites constituted those governed by the ruling "Nephi," who was always a direct descendant of the original Nephi. But the label does not of itself convey information about the ethnic, linguistic, or physical characteristics or origin of those called Nephites. It is true that the name "Nephites" sometimes connotes those who shared culture, religion, and ethnicity or biology.5 But every rule-of-thumb we construct that treats the Nephites as a thoroughly homogeneous unit ends up violated by details in the text. Variety shows through the common label, culturally (e.g., Mosiah 7:15; Alma 8:11-12), religiously (e.g., Mosiah 26:4-5 and 27:1; Alma 8:11), linguistically (e.g., Omni 1:17-18), and biologically (e.g., Alma 3:17, note the statement concerning Nephi's seed "and whomsoever shall be called thy seed"; Alma 55:4). "Nephites" should then be read as the generic name designating the nation (see Alma 9:20) ideally unified in a political structure headed by one direct descendant of Nephi at a time.6 Even more indicative of social and cultural variation among the Nephites is the usage by their historians of the expression "people of the Nephites." It connotes that there existed a social stratum called "the Nephites" while another category was "people" who were "of," that is, subordinate to, those "Nephites," even while they all were under the same central government and within the same broad society. Limhi was ready to accept such a second-class status for his people, the Zeniffites, and assumed that the dependent category still existed as it apparently had when his grandfather had left Zarahemla (see Mosiah 7:15).
The Amulonites operated a similar system in the land of Helam, where they held Alma's group in effective serfdom (see Mosiah 23:36-39 and 24:8-15). (At the same time the privileges of the Amulonites themselves were at the sufferance of the Lamanite king, as shown in Mosiah 23:39; power in Lamanite society was also heavily stratified.)
---------------
****If this can be shown by the text, I am ready to listen.
However, we read this:
Alma 27:8: And the king said unto him: yea, if the lord saith unto us go, we will go down unto our brethren, and WE WILL BE THEIR SLAVES until we repair unto them the many murders and sins which we have committed against them.
Alma 27:9: But Ammon said unto him: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW OF OUR BRETHREN, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY MY FATHER, THAT THERE SHOULD BE ANY SLAVES AMONG THEM; therefore let us go down and rely upon the mercies of OUR BRETHREN.
---------------
Generally, similar stratification is evident in the account of the Zoramites where the powerful segment succeeded in expelling those of the deprived poorer element who did not toe the line (see Alma 32:2-5; 35:3-7).
--------------
****Why would the poor Zoramites want to join the Nephites, if they were only to join in as poor slaves? Just to be able to worship in sanctuaries? But hadn't they just been taught by Alma and Amulek that true worship didn't require sanctuaries?
Part of the problem with dissident/ segment groups was their changing of the Nephite laws, as we see in this example and with the people of Ammonihah. This is an example of it.
-------------
The dominance of a powerful Nephite establishment over subordinate groups is shown dramatically in Mormon 2:4. There we read that Nephite armies under Mormon "did take possession of the city" of Angola, obviously against the resistance of the local, nominally "Nephite" inhabitants. Hence, some were more Nephite than others, in a sense.
-----------------
****Why it is clear that this is "obviously against the resistance of the local, nominally "Nephite" inhabitants", I have no idea.
And yet, when talking about Amulek, Sorenson did not explore this option.
Here's what the Book of Mormon says in Mormon 2:4:
Mormon 2:4: And it came to pass that we did come to the city of Angola, and WE DID TAKE POSSESSION OF THE CITY, and make preparations to defend ourselves against the Lamanites. And it came to pass that WE DID FORTIFY THE CITY WITH OUR MIGHT; but notwithstanding all our fortifications THE LAMANITES did come upon us and did drive us out of the city.
. . .
"And it came to pass that we did gather in OUR PEOPLE as fast as it were possible, that we might get them together in one body" (Mormon 2:7).
"But behold, THE LAND WAS FILLED WITH ROBBERS AND WITH LAMANITES; and notwithstanding the great destruction which hung over my people, they did not repent of their evil doings; therefore there was BLOOD AND CARNAGE SPREAD THROUGHOUT ALL THE FACE OF THE LAND, BOTH on the part of THE NEPHITES and also on the part of THE LAMANITES; and it was ONE COMPLETE REVOLUTION THROUGHOUT ALL THE FACE OF THE LAND." (Mormon 2:8).
It likely means just what it says: Moroni, fleeing to an area that was before far from the battlefront and not prepared for war, took over the city--that is, put it under military command, and relieved the civil leader(s) of defense duties, and possibly civil duties (martial law) over the city. Had he had privileges or the voice of the people to do this (as the previous Moroni often had), this is wholly possible. Why would righteous Mormon usurp authority from an "other" "lower" people (and then possibly kick them out of their own city,) who were already "Nephites", then gather in "real" Nephites who were somehow all around in the same/ nearby area? Mormon plain wouldn't have done it, especially if it were an unwarring city of stranger Nephites. Isn't class distinction spoken about in the Book of Mormon? Isn't this "Charity" Mormon?
Does this theory--that Mormon 2:4 shows lesser Nephites--make sense? The only possible way it would make sense, is if another people had first taken it from the Nephites, and Mormon was just taking back what was lawfully theirs, or if this people were evil and God told him to do it/ etc. Which would make them not Nephites, but another people. So there is that possbility, but it seems pretty remote.
And when there were Nephites, Lamanites, and robbers all over the land in a state of extreme random violence, how did this lesser "people" survive?
When speaking about Amalickiah, it says:
Alma 47:31
"And it came to pass on the morrow HE ENTERED THE CITY NEPHI WITH HIS ARMIES, AND TOOK POSSESSION OF THE CITY."
Alma 47:33
"Therefore, when the queen had received this message she sent unto Amalickiah, desiring him that he would spare the people of the city; and she also desired him that he should come in unto her; and she also desired him that he should bring witnesses with him to testify concerning the death of the king."
Amalickiah was already on the Lamanite side and the leader of the army, yet he is not the civil ruler. I believe that this once more supports my view.
On the other hand, "take possession" and "obtained possession" in the following verses means a change in powers, and "took command" means to switch leaders of the same team:
Alma 52:24
"...And while Teancum was thus leading away the Lamanites who were pursuing them in vain, behold, Moroni commanded that a part of his army who were with him should MARCH FORTH INTO THE CITY, AND TAKE POSSESSION OF IT."
Alma 52:25
"And thus THEY DID, AND SLEW ALL THOSE [LAMANITES] who had been left to protect the city, yea, all those who would not yield up their weapons of war."
Alma 52:26
"And thus Moroni had OBTAINED POSSESSION OF THE CITY MULEK WITH A PART OF HIS ARMY..."
Alma 53:2
"And MORONI WENT TO THE CITY OF MULEK WITH LEHI, AND TOOK COMMAND OF THE CITY AND GAVE IT UNTO LEHI..."
In the context of cities, Mosiah 23:29, Alma 43:22, 47:8, 51:23, 26, 30, 52:13, 55:24, 58:21, 28, 61:18, Helaman 1:20, Mormon 4:2, 7, 13, all support "take/ taking possession" meaning one side taking it from an opposing side.
Alma 2:25,
Alma 50:29
Therefore, Morianton put it into their hearts that they should flee to the land which was northward, which was covered with large bodies of water, and take possession of the land which was northward.
Alma 62:6
And thus, when Moroni had gathered together whatsoever men he could in all his march, he came to the land of Gideon; and uniting his forces with those of Pahoran they became exceedingly strong, even stronger than the men of Pachus, who was the king of those dissenters who had driven the freemen out of the land of Zarahemla and had taken possession of the land.
Alma 62:7
And it came to pass that Moroni and Pahoran went down with their armies into the land of Zarahemla, and went forth against the city, and did meet the men of Pachus, insomuch that they did come to battle.
Alma 62:8
And behold, Pachus was slain and his men were taken prisoners, and Pahoran was restored to his judgment-seat.
Alma 62:11
And thus ended the thirtieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; Moroni and Pahoran having restored peace to the land of Zarahemla, among their own people, having inflicted death upon all those who were not true to the cause of freedom.
3 Nephi 4:1
AND it came to pass that in the latter end of the eighteenth year those armies of robbers had prepared for battle, and began to come down and to sally forth from the hills, and out of the mountains, and the wilderness, and their strongholds, and their secret places, and began to take possession of the lands, both which were in the land south and which were in the land north, and began to take possession of all the lands which had been deserted by the Nephites, and the cities which had been left desolate.
Alma 27:26
And it came to pass that it did cause great joy among them. And they went down into the land of Jershon, and took possession of the land of Jershon; and they were called by the Nephites the people of Ammon; therefore they were distinguished by that name ever after.
In Helaman 1:33, we read that:
". . .Moronihah TOOK POSSESSION of the city of Zarahemla AGAIN, and caused that the Lamanites who had been taken prisoners should depart out of the land in peace".
Mormon 4:2
Mormon 4:8
And it came to pass that they were repulsed and driven back by the Nephites. And when the Nephites saw that they had driven the Lamanites they did again boast of their own strength; and they went forth in their own might, and took possession again of the city Desolation.
"Took possession" is not really clear here, because of the death of the chief judge, but fortunately the word "again" in the verse supports this author's answer.
Nephihah, the second chief judge, died, having filled the judgment-seat with perfect uprightness before God.
Alma 50:38
Nevertheless, he had refused Alma to take possession of those records and those things which were esteemed by Alma and his fathers to be most sacred; therefore Alma had conferred them upon his son, Helaman.
Alma 63:1
AND it came to pass in the commencement of the thirty and sixth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, that Shiblon took possession of those sacred things which had been delivered unto Helaman by Alma.
It's hard to imagine that, at this time, a smaller, lesser group of people, especially one unfriendly to the Nephites, could have survived the robbers and the Lamanites, but then be overtaken by the Nephites.
Also, this seems to be a pattern in this war of Mormon with the Lamanites.
--------------
A socially complex society is also reflected in Alma's expression, "all [God's] people who are called the people of Nephi" (Alma 9:19).
-------------
****Well, this interpretation might be one possibility, though I find that a hard way to interpret it. That doesn't mean it is NECESSARILY reflected in Alma's expression.
Let's see about these verses, where Alma is speaking to the people of Ammonihah. The people of Ammonihah (at least some, though it seems like most or all is more like it) were 1. not of the church at that time (Alma 8:12); 2. studied to destroy the liberty of Alma's people (geographic or religious?) (Alma 8:17), which was 3. unlawful, both civily and in the sight of God (Alma 8:17). Yet, Alma, speaking to them, asks them to REMEMBER: "the tradition of your fathers" and "the commandments of God" (Alma 9:8); how God led "OUR FATHER, LEHI" out of Jerusalem and through the wilderness (Alma 9:9); how God had "delivered OUR FATHERS out of the hands of their enemies, and preserved them from being destroyed, even by the hands of THEIR OWN BRETHREN (Alma 9:10). Alma then continues to differentiate the Ammonihahites from the Lamanites, and instead group them with the Nephites (see Alma 9:18-24), linking them--once more--to the complete Nephite history in the process.
Let's look at verses 18 and 19 again:
Alma 9:18
"But behold, I say unto you that if ye persist in your wickedness that your days shall not be prolonged in the land, for the Lamanites shall be sent upon you; and if ye repent not they shall come in a time when you know not, and ye shall be visited with utter destruction; and it shall be according to the fierce anger of the Lord."
Alma 9:19
"For he will not suffer you that ye shall live in your iniquities, to destroy his people. I say unto you, Nay; he would rather suffer that the Lamanites might destroy ALL HIS PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED THE PEOPLE OF NEPHI, if it were possible that they could fall into sins and transgressions, after having had so much light and so much knowledge given unto them of the Lord their God;"
So what else could this mean? God will not allow the Nephite apostates and seditionists to follow and fulfill their plan to destroy his people, but would rather leave that task to the Lamanites.
Though it might sound simplistic and strained, the Lord also has other people in other lands.
Alma could also have meant for the Ammonihahites to remember that they were Nephites, too, and that the prophecy still held to them, even though they had separated themselves from the Nephites; the prophecy wasn't just for the "other" Nephites. Which "other" Nephites? The ones the people of Ammonihah were going to try to destroy.
And the Lamanites did destroy the people of Ammonihah.
-------------
This subordination and potential variety within the society seem to me plainer in the expression "the people of the Nephites" than in the more usual "Nephites." If we look closely, then, it seems that we can detect in the "nation" centered at Zarahemla an ability to incorporate social and ethnic variety greater than the title "Nephites" may suggest on surface reading. Also of interest is a statement by the judges in Zarahemla to Nephi when he prophesied the destruction of the Nephites because of wickedness. At Helaman 8:6 they reply, "we are powerful, and our cities great, therefore our enemies can have no power over us." The surprising thing is that nominally the Nephites and Lamanites were at this time in an unprecedented condition of peace (see Helaman 6:34-37). So who were the "enemies" those Gadianton-linked judges had in mind?
------------------
****I think that the fact that they were at peace for so long led them to believe that the Lamanites didn't attack because they feared them.
Helaman 3:17: And now I return again to mine account; therefore, what I have spoken had passed after there had been great CONTENTIONS, AND DISTURBANCES, AND WARS, AND DISSENSIONS, AMONG THE PEOPLE OF NEPHI.
. . .
Helaman 3:19: And it came to pass that there WAS STILL GREAT CONTENTION IN THE LAND, yea, even in the forty and seventh year, and also in the forty and eighth year.
Look at Italy in the late 1200's/ early 1300's.
These wicked judges might have easily called the Lamanites "enemies"--though converted, there were still two lands and a long history of war and hatred.
It is also possible that there was at least contention, if not war, with the people in the land northward, who at that time were wicked:
"And it came to pass that many of the Lamanites did go into the LAND NORTHWARD; and also Nephi and Lehi went into the land northward, TO PREACH UNTO THE PEOPLE. And thus ended the sixty and third year" (Helaman 6:6).
"For he had been forth among the people who were in THE LAND NORTHWARD and did preach the word of God unto them, and did prophesy many things unto them;" (Helaman 7:2)
"And they DID REJECT ALL HIS WORDS, insomuch that he could not stay among them, but returned again unto the land of his nativity" (Helaman 7:3).
-----------------
Could they have been non-Lamanites (rival secret groups?), some of whose descendants in the final period of Nephite history constituted a third, non-Lamanite force (see Mormon 2:10, 27)?
---------------
****There is nothing I see in Mormon 2:10, 27 that even implies this coming of the Gadianton robbers into the Nephite lands from a different place, if this is what is meant. All the references to the Gadianton robbers/ secret societies in the Book of Mormon (including Ether) relate them to the Nephites and Lamanites only.
Not only that, but Nephi was preaching against the Gadianton robbers, who had obtained sole management of the government and had many followers (Helaman 6:39; 7:4, 21, 25).
Additionally, when Nephi is rejected and the there is a war, it is among the Nephites, not the Nephites versus "others" (Helaman 10:18). We read a few verses later that it is really the Nephites versus the "secret band of robbers" (Helaman 11:1, 2)--the Gadianton robbers", who were "amonst them" (Helaman 11:10).
----------------
The People of Zarahemla The people of Zarahemla keep turning up when we consider possible "others." Characterizing them adequately is difficult because of the brevity of the Nephite-kept record, which is, of course, our only source about them. Elsewhere I have presented a rather comprehensive body of data and inference about them.7 But my special concern now is the question of unity or variety in the composition of this element within Nephite society. How uniform a group was that immigrating party? It is very likely that non-Jews were in the crew of the vessel that brought Zedekiah's son Mulek to the New World (see Omni 1:15-16). A purely Israelite crew recruited in the Palestine homeland would have been possible during some periods, but at the time Mulek's party left, all the Mediterranean ports of the kingdom of Judah were in Babylonian hands. Most likely the crew of the ship (there could have been more than one, of course) were "Phoenician," itself a historical category that was by no means homogeneous. Significant cultural, linguistic, and biological variety could have been introduced into American Book of Mormon populations through such a mixed crew, about which, unfortunately, the text tells us nothing.
------------
****"Unfortunately" seems to be tempting . . .
------------
Our cryptic record tells of only one segment, those descendants from that shipload who ended up centuries after the landing under one Zarahemla. When Mosiah, the leader of the Nephites who had come from the land of Nephi, reached Zarahemla's city, he is not reported to have stood in the way of Mosiah's becoming king over the combined people. He put up no claim to royal descent himself, nor was he ever called a king. The name "the people of Zarahemla" carries their political standing no farther back than this living man. The fact that no ancestral name was applied to their city except that of the current leader, Zarahemla, indicates that they had no long history as a political entity. Probably they had not arrived in the area of the city of Zarahemla long before Mosiah found them, or at least the place had been insignificant enough that no one earlier than Zarahemla had named it. (Later Nephite custom named settlements after "him who first possessed them"; Alma 8:7.)
-------------
****Naming occurs earlier in the Book of Mormon, though maybe in a different way: the land of Nephi (1 Nephi 5:8); then in Alma 2:20: ". . .in the valley of Gideon, THE VALLEY BEING CALLED AFTER THAT GIDEON WHO WAS SLAIN BY THE HAND OF NEHOR WITH THE SWORD. . .", later confirmed in Alma 6:7: ". . .Alma. . .went over upon the east of the river sidon, into the valley of Gideon, there having been a city built, which was called THE CITY OF GIDEON, which was in the valley that was called Gideon, BEING CALLED AFTER THE MAN WHO WAS SLAIN BY THE HAND OF NEHOR WITH THE SWORD."
-------------
They or their ancestors had come "up" the river to that spot from the eastern lowland area where they had earlier lived (see Alma 22:30-31). Furthermore, this area they now inhabited was small. When King Benjamin later called the assembly where he named his son as his successor, the call reached the entire area concerned in a single day (see Mosiah 1:10, 18). Zarahemla's group could only have been one part of those descended from Mulek's party. No single ethnic label is applied in the record to everybody from the original ship, one hint of their diversity or disunity.
--------------
****If I'm not mistaken, "No single ethnic label" is clearly given to ANY of the groups in the Book of Mormon. So what significance would this mean, or what hint would this be?
--------------
Had all descendants of the immigrant party remained together as a single society, they would probably have been referred to by a single name, something like "Mulekites." (Latter-day Saints use that term as equivalent to the people of Zarahemla although it never occurs in the text; I usually put it in quotation marks to make clear that it is not an ancient term.) The statement that there had been "many wars and serious contentions" among those descendants underlines the lack of a unified history for them which is evident from the lack of a single name.
----------
****Why does the "statement that there had been 'many wars and serious contentions' among those descendants" underline "the lack of a unified history for them which is evident from the lack of a single name"? Are you assuming, incorrectly, that any nation that has many wars and serious contentions lacks a unified history? Goodness gracious, a FAMILY can have many wars and serious contentions, and they are just a family. A unified history, and a single name, DO NOT necessarily lead to unity.
Also, just because the word "Mulekites" doesn't appear, doesn't mean it wasn't an ancient term.
Out of curiosity, where did the term "Mulekites" come from?
----------
Another statement in the record impinges on this matter. When Mosiah 25:2 speaks of the subjects ruled by Mosiah, it contrasts two categories of the population. The first is, of course, "the children of Nephi . . . who were descendants of Nephi," that is, apparently, those who had arrived in the land of Zarahemla guided by the first King Mosiah. The second category is itself composite: "the people of Zarahemla, who was a descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness" (Omni 1:13-14). Two readings of this statement make equal sense. If the comma after "Mulek" was inserted correctly (initially by the printing crew, who did most of the punctuation for the first English edition), then the meaning would be that the "Mulekites" consisted of people whose ancestors included both Mulek and others, "those who came with him." But an alternative reading would be possible if the comma after "Mulek" should be omitted; in that case, Zarahemla himself would be represented as descended from both Mulek and others of Mulek's party. I take the former meaning and suppose that other groups than Zarahemla's coexisted with them (though apparently not at the capital, the city of Zarahemla). This may be part of the reason the man Zarahemla is nowhere called king--because he had political authority only over one of those groups springing from the Mulek party and that one very localized. Consequently a lesser title--something like "chief"--would have fitted him better. But the Nephite kings proceeded to extend their rule over a greater area. At least by the day of Mosiah 2, the borders of the greater land of Zarahemla had been greatly expanded compared with Benjamin's time.8 I consider it likely that the expansion of their domain over the territory between the city of Zarahemla and the original settlement spot of the "Mulekites," probably the city of Mulek located near the east coast, came to incorporate additional settlements of "those who came with him into the wilderness" but who had had no political connection with chief Zarahemla.9
-------------
****Major speculations which should be noted as such.
-------------
More evidence that the people of Zarahemla were not a unified group who followed a single cultural tradition can be seen in Ammon's encounter with Limhi. The Zeniffite king reported to Ammon that not long before, he had sent an exploring party to locate Zarahemla, but, it turned out, they reached the Jaredite final battleground instead. At the point when Limhi told about that expedition, Ammon was oddly silent on one related point. Since he was himself "a descendant of Zarahemla" (Mosiah 7:13), we might have anticipated that he would recall Coriantumr, the final Jaredite king as described for us in Omni 1:20-22. Why did Ammon not remember that chief Zarahemla's ancestors had this dramatic tradition of an earlier people, the Jaredites, who occupied the land of Desolation and who became extinct except for this wounded alien ruler who lived among the Jewish newcomers for nine months?
-------------
(****You're going against your "many leftover Jaredites" theory here.)
------------
Surely he would immediately have related the twenty-four gold plates and the corroded artifacts to the tradition to which Limhi referred. Instead, Ammon seems as ignorant of Coriantumr as Limhi was. This suggests that different segments of the "Mulekite" population did not all share the same traditions.
---------------
****You're assuming that warrior/ scout/ group leader Ammon is intelligent, learned, and able to make connections--when the pieces he was working with were very unclear, in a new, exciting situation.
--------------
Further reason to see variety among the "Mulekites" is provided by the Amlicites (see Alma 2). In their rebellion against being ruled by the Nephites, they mustered a large rebel force, about the same size as the loyal Nephite army. They "came" from some distinct settlement locality of their own (surely from downriver) to challenge Alma's army.10
------------
****Huge assumption here. A man wants to be king, only. (I can't find "surely from downriver" in my Book of Mormon.)
Let's look at the story:
Alma 2:1: "And it came to pass in the commencement of the fifth year of their reign there began to be a contention AMONG THE PEOPLE; for a certain man, being called Amlici, he being a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world, he being after the order of the man that slew Gideon by the sword, who was executed according to the law--
Alma 2:2: Now this Amlici had, by his cunning, DRAWN AWAY MUCH PEOPLE AFTER HIM (understand this can be "persuaded to his point of view", not "gathered them to his land"--see next verse). . .
Alma 2:3: Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who HAD NOT BEEN DRAWN AWAY AFTER THE PERSUASIONS OF AMLICI; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people.
Alma 2:5: And it came to pass that THE PEOPLE ASSEMBLED THEMSELVES TOGETHER THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND, EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS MIND, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies (this can be "of belief"), having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another. (If they were physically/ geographically separated by a long distance, how could they have "much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another"?)
Alma 2:8: . . .but Amlici did stir up those who were in his favor to anger against those who were not in his favor.
Alma 2:9: And it came to pass that THEY GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER (now, at this time--not before), and did consecrate Amlici to be their king.
Alma 2:10: Now when Amlici was made king over them he commanded them that they should take up arms AGAINST THEIR BRETHREN; and this he did that he might subject them to him.
Alma 2:11: Now the people of Amlici were distinguished by the name of Amlici, being called Amlicites; and the remainder were called Nephites, OR THE PEOPLE OF GOD. (Here the distinction is people of "God vs. rebels", not ethnic groups, etc.)
------------
There can be little question, it seems to me, that they constituted a numerous population with their own history and cultural features whom the intruding Nephite elite ruled only with difficulty. These Amlicites may have been broadly categorized together with "the people of Zarahemla," although residing at a distance from the city of Zarahemla and so never headed by the chief whom Mosiah encountered and coopted. The Amlicites, like Ammon and the Zeniffites, seem not to have traced any connection with Mulek but set themselves apart only under their current leader's name, Amlici. Perhaps they were a local group or set of groups derived in part from Jaredite ancestry or perhaps from ancestors other than Mulek who arrived with his party. The "king-men" of later days may have been composed of the same societal elements but without a leader equivalent to Amlici to confer on them a (his) distinctive name. The king-men, too, inhabited a distinct region, for when Moroni "commanded that his army should go against those king-men," they were "hewn down" and compelled to fly the "title of liberty" standard "in their cities" (Alma 51:17-20). This language confirms that they, like the Amlicites, had a base territory of their own and that it was a significant distance from the city of Zarahemla. Again, quite surely, it lay downriver.
-------------
****Again, I can't find this in the Book of Mormon.
When you rebel in these conditions, you must gather to fight. Did they start out all in the same spot, or gather? It seems clear that they had to gather, after they first rebelled.
------------
Mulek's party likely settled first at "the city of Mulek," which was on the east coast very near the city Bountiful. During some period between the first landing of the Mulek party and Zarahemla's day, the descendants of the immigrants became "exceedingly numerous"--enough to engage in "many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time" (Omni 1:17). The departure of Zarahemla's faction upriver was plausibly a consequence of those wars. From the thumbnail sketch of their history in Omni we cannot tell much, but their becoming "exceedingly numerous" under such difficult pioneer circumstances sounds as unlikely on the grounds of natural increase alone as when the same expression was applied to the early Lamanites (see below). It is likely that they too incorporated "others" into their structure, probably seizing control, or trying to seize control, over relatively disorganized Jaredite remnants they encountered. Perhaps the wars in which they became involved stemmed initially from the militarized chaos they may have found reverberating among those remnants following the "final" battle between the armies of Shiz and Coriantumr.11
Evidence from Language What Mosiah's record tells us about the language used by the people of Zarahemla deserves attention in this connection. "Their language had become corrupted" (Omni 1:17), the Nephite account says. Certain historical linguists have done a great deal of work on rates of change of languages, written and unwritten, and in both civilized and simpler societies.12 What they have learned is that "basic vocabulary" changes at a more or less constant rate among all groups. Even though this general finding needs qualification when applied to specific cases, we can be sure that in the course of the three or four centuries of separation of the people of Zarahemla from Mosiah's group, because they once spoke the same tongue in Jerusalem, their separate versions of Hebrew would have remained intelligible to each other. But the text at Omni 1:18 says that they could not communicate until Mosiah "caused that they should be taught in his language." There are only two linguistically sound explanations why this difference should be: (1) the "Mulekite" group might have spoken more than one language and Zarahemla's people had adopted something other than Hebrew; since we do not know the composition of the boat's crew nor of the elite passengers, we cannot know what to think about this possibility; (2) but more likely, one or both peoples had adopted a different, non-Hebrew language learned from some "other" people after arrival.
Gardner:
Another of Sorenson's indications of the presence of "others" relies on an understanding of language change; most readers of the Book of Mormon would be unaware of these issues. Our Sunday School lessons certainly point out that the Mulekites had lost their language, but what those lessons do not explain is that this would have been rather unlikely. Languages do change, but they are not "lost" without the outside influence of another language that becomes more dominant and replaces the lost language. Sorenson does not miss this bit of information but indicates that the study of historical linguistics has revealed a basic rate of change for the same language that develops in two independent locations in which the two populations are unable to communicate (see p. 83). The rate of change from the time of the departure from the Old World for either the Mulekites or Nephites to the time of the arrival of Mosiah and his people in Zarahemla is insufficient to create mutually unintelligible languages, as is clearly the case in the Book of Mormon. Once again, we have a feature of the Book of Mormon that could not represent society accurately unless we understand that "others" were present and interacted with the Book of Mormon populations.
----------
****Once again, something that might be "unlikely", is shown as "impossible".
Let's see what it says in Omni 1:17:
"And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them."
First, note that it does not say that they could not "communicate"--just that they could not be understood by the Nephites.
We are unaware of the languages that might have been in Mulek's group. Were the people to have broken into small villages or groups, or if families were to speak different languages in the homes, this would have easily set up a corruption/ pidgin language system. This has been shown to happen in just one generation. The record shows roughly about 330 years, maybe even roughly up to 470 years. Or, they could have divided into family or language groups, and then had the "many wars and serious contentions" between the groups/ among themselves.
The people of Zarahemla ("Mulekites") had no records with them. A big purpose of having records is to maintain a language. It might be likely that a language, without writing, will become corrupted over 400 years. While the Nephites could not understand them, the Mulekites seem to have learned very quickly, which leads me to think that the language was not so badly corrupted in all ways. Especially if it was the pronunciation that had been corrupted, the language could be learned very quickly. (Hey, I couldn't understand my mission president for a while just because of the way he pronounced a few common words!) If the pronunciation of some basic syllables were the main change or corruption, that could well account for why the Nephites couldn't understand them, yet the Mulekites could quickly learn the language.
It seems that the Nephite language doesn't change much, over all that time. If Nephi's group were so small, and there were many "others" that they mingled with, how is it that language didn't change towards that of the "others" (unless perhaps the "others" didn't have a written language)? The language of the Lamanites changes, but they didn't have any written records, and writing was lost at least by the time of Amulon and the priests of Noah. Can anyone think of anything else, or any other reason or possible explanation? How much do unwritten languages change, compared to written ones, when there is no oral tradition or history or anything to memorize, and there were no learned ones to keep the standard? What happens to language when only two people raise a large family?
-----------
The people of Zarahemla are more likely to have made a change than the Nephites, yet both could have done so. The text does not clarify the point. Considering that the "Mulekites" were present in the land in time to encounter Coriantumr, perhaps some unmentioned Jaredite survivor groups were also discovered and were involved in linguistic change among the newcomers. If Mulek arrived via a single ship with only a tiny party, they would have been a minority in the midst of those with whom they associated and so became subject to losing their original speech to the larger host group even if they came to rule over the locals.13 Although the scripture does not tell us much about the languages used among the peoples it reports, the topic is significant if we attempt to make connection with languages known from modern scholarly sources. In whatever region in America we place Book of Mormon lands, we find that numerous tongues were being spoken when Columbus arrived. Probably on the order of 200 existed in Mesoamerica alone. As modern languages have been analyzed, comparisons made, and histories reconstructed, it has become clear that the ancient linguistic scene was also complex. The differences between those languages and their family groupings are so great that no plausible linguistic history can be formulated which relies on Book of Mormon-reported voyagers as a sole original source tongue. The mere presence of Hebrew speech in Mesoamerica has yet to be established to the satisfaction of linguistic scholars, although there is significant preliminary indication.
-------------
****Not established, though possibly shown.
Besides, were the Nephites and Lamanites to have isolated, then their languagees would have had no bearing or relationship to any of the languages spoken there--at all.
And so why would Mulek's tiny group have so drastically changed it's language because of "others", yet Lehi's tiny group, and after the split, with Nephi's and Laman's even tinier groups, wouldn't?
--------------
As with the dicultural or archaeological record, that from linguistics cannot accommodate the picture that the Book of Mormon gives us of its peoples without supposing that "others" were on the scene when Lehi's group came ashore.
-----------------
****or after, or in the lands around them but not having any connection with Lehi's group, or if the land were separated from mesoamerica, or. . . Where's the direct and necessary connection between the Book of Mormon peoples and these peoples?
----------------
The Lingering Jaredites There is conclusive evidence in the Book of Mormon text that Jaredite language affected the people of Zarahemla, the Nephites, and the Lamanites. Robert F. Smith has pointed out that the term "sheum," applied by a Nephite historian to a crop for which there was no Nephite (or English) equivalent (see Mosiah 9:9), "is a precise match for Akkadian (i.e. Babylonian) , which means 'barley' (Old Assyrian, 'wheat'), the most popular ancient Mesopotamian cereal name."14 Its phonetic form appropriately fits the time period when the Jaredites departed from the Old World. This plant was being grown among the Zeniffites in the land of Nephi. We have already seen that the "corn" emphasized among the Zeniffites had to have passed down from pre-Lehite people. Still another crop, "neas," bears an untranslated plant name and is mentioned with corn and sheum, so it must also be of non-Nephite origin.
-----------
***Why "must [it] also be of non-Nephite origin"? Does that mean that the untranslated animals mentioned with the Jaredites were there in the land, before the Jaredites arrived?
Also, the use of these names occurs in Mosiah 9:9, a time that follows the discovery and translation of Jaredite records.
-----------
The two names and three crops may be presumed to be of Jaredite origin and likely came down to the Nephites and Lamanites via the people of Zarahemla if not some more exotic intermediary population. There is also evidence from personal names that [show that] influence from the Jaredites reached the Nephites. Nibley identifies some of these and notes, "Five out of the six whose names [in the Nephite record] are definitely Jaredite [Morianton, Coriantumr, Korihor, Nehor, Noah, and Shiblon] betray strong anti-Nephite leanings.15
-------------
**** After a quick search, these names are used by both Jaredites and Nephites (list from Book of Mormon; may be incomplete):
-Shiblon (Ether 1:11; Alma 11:15, Alma 31:7)
-Morianton (Ether 1:22; Alma 50:25, 30)
-Shiblom (Ether 13:30; Mormon 6:14)
-Gilgal (Ether 13:30; Mormon 6:14)
-Nehor (Ether 7:4, 9; Alma 1:15)
-Noah (Ether 7:14; King Noah in Mosiah)
-Coriantumr (Ether 8:4, etc. Here, though, Coriantumr was known to the Mulekites, and no mention of this name occurs among the Nephites before that time.)
In addition: Bible names mentioned in Ether: Seth, Aaron, Levi, Noah. However, since Bible names would have been known to the Nephites through the Brass Plates, they don't seem to count in this discussion.
Do any of the Jaredite names appear in the Book of Mormon BEFORE the discovery of the Jaredite records? None!
Are there people today in the church named Alma, Ammon, Nephi, Moroni, etc.? Yes, even though these names are completely out of connection with society these members live in. Are there any people named Jonah, even though though this character is negative in the Bible? Are there any people named Jezebel, or Judas? Does the name necessarily fit each time? If your parent names you Magus, does that mean that you personally believe in and follow Simon or the gnostics?
The comment by Nibley means the people with these names were mostly very wicked men, in which case, it seems much more likely that they would take the "Jaredite name" upon themselves as a nickname or such to denote their wickedness/ anti-Nephite leanings, not that they were given that name at birth and then cultivated to become a wicked person to fulfill their name.
Which brings us to another problem--it would seem that one must assume that all the remaining Jaredites (if there were) were all wicked--now how in the world did THAT happen? If the Lord were to have spared them, surely they would have been righteous.
(See also the first arguments about Jaredites earlier in the paper.)
Thus, while very possible, definitely not necessary.
------------
Their anti-Nephite bias may well reflect a viewpoint held by some among the people of Zarahemla or other groups of related origin that one of them, not any descendant of Nephi, ought by rights to be king.
--------------
****It might. It just seems very strange to me that, while the introduction is given to the situation, and many negative things result from it, it is never mentioned as the cause or reason, not even in the face of the king-men situation. Yet in the Book of Mormon, many of the other times there are problems, especially those discussed in detail, reasons are given for the problem.
--------------
Nibley also emphasizes that terms in the Nephite system of money and grain measures described in Alma 11 "bear Jaredite names," obvious examples being "shiblon" and "shiblum."16 Can we tell how these foreign words came into use among the Nephites? One possibility is that Coriantumr learned enough of the language of the "Mulekites" in the nine final months of his life which he spent among them to pass on a number of words. Another possibility is that the terms came from Mosiah's translation of Ether's plates (see Mosiah 28:11-13, 17). But Alma 11:4 makes clear that the names of weights and measures were in use among the Nephites long before Mosiah had read Ether's record.
----------------
****Let's take a look at Alma 11:4: " Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And THE NAMES ARE GIVEN BY THE NEPHITES, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but THEY ALTERED THEIR RECKONING AND THEIR MEASURE, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, UNTIL THE REIGN OF THE JUDGES, THEY HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED BY KING MOSIAH." It was King Mosiah, who had the plates and their translations, who established them. Now, were the names and the reckoning and the measuer changed too? Continuing reading, it says,
"Now the reckoning is thus--a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold" (Alma 11:5). . ."A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain" (Alma 11:7).
Then, "Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning--" (Alma 11:14)
"A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley" (Alma 11:15). It seems that the name of the reckoning is included.
Well, if the reckoning changes, then when in his reign did he do this? It sounds like he set it up for the new ruling of the judges, which means long after the records of the Jaredites were translated. King Mosiah could have just used the Jaredite system, including that names--that he had read about in the records--to establish the Nephite system, and found it easier to call them by their original names. Once more, first the Jaredite records, then the Jaredite things.
---------------
And the crop plants themselves, and especially the methods of cultivating them, must have come through real people, not through the pages of any book. Moreover we would not expect that a decrepit Jaredite king whose mind was on the history of his ancestors would have known about or bothered with such mundane matters as seeds and the names of weight units.
---------------
****Where does "decrepit Jaredite king whose mind was on the history of his ancestors" come from? After thinking about the phrase for a while, I imagine that you are assuming that Coriantumr couldn't have told the Mulekites about seeds and weight units, and therefore someone else had to have done it. Well, that sounds somewhat ridiculous. That's like saying a king doesn't understand the basic things of his own people--a somewhat western thinking.
Being a king, one SHOULD know all these matters.
Remember, the Jaredites didn't have one long, peaceful, unbroken line of kings--thus the support of the common man was necessary for a king (or rebel), and how would one relate to the common man if nothing about the common man was known and understood?
If Coriantumr of Ether 12 is the same one as in Ether 8:4, then we see that he probably spent the first part of his life in captivity, with his father, who was in captivity. What did these men do in captivity? Just sit around? I imagine hardly that. In captivity, they might have learned about and done a lot more mundane things than one might imagine, including manual labor--such as farming, etc.
Also, there are the records.
---------------
The people who passed on workaday items like those would have been commoners. And if they had time and opportunity to pass on agricultural and commercial complexes, surely they would have communicated other cultural features as well, probably including cultic ("idolatrous") items. The idea that part of the Jaredite population lived beyond the battle at the hill Ramah to influence their successors, the people of Zarahemla and Lehi's descendants, is by no means new. Generations ago both B. H. Roberts and J. M. Sjodahl, for example, supposed that significant Jaredite remnants survived.17
---------------
****"Calling on the ancients" is not a logical argument, however--it just means that many thought about this idea--or had the wrong idea--first.
---------------
So far four lines of evidence of Jaredite influence on their successors have been mentioned--the Coriantumr encounter, Jaredite personal names among the later peoples, three crops plus the names of two of them, and the names of certain Nephite weights and measures. A fifth type of evidence is the nature and form of secret societies. The Nephite secret combination pattern is obviously very similar to what had been present among the Jaredites. Was there a historical connection? It is true that Alma instructed his son Helaman not to make known to their people any contents of Ether's record that might give them operating procedures for duplicating the secret groups (see Alma 37:27-29). A later writer says that it was the devil who "put into the heart" of Gadianton certain information of that sort (see Helaman 6:26). Yet an efficient alternative explanation of how the later secret groups came to look so much like those of the Jaredites is direct transmission of the tradition through survivors of the Jaredites to the people of Zarahemla and thus to Gadianton. This process probably would have been unknown to Alma or other elite Nephite writers, who must have had little to do directly with the mass of "Mulekite" folk. Support for the idea comes from a statement by Giddianhi, one-time "governor" of the Gadianton organization. Their ways, he claimed, "are of ancient date and they have been handed down unto us" (3 Nephi 3:9).
----------------
****Possibly. This happens often with gangs, for example. However, it is hard to imagine, and not necessarily so, that every secret society is connected to every other one through direct relations.
And isn't it very possible that the Brass Plates contained records about Cain and his society, as in Genesis and Enoch?
Cain could be the connection to them all, and could have handed them down to them himself, with the explanation of who he was and where they had come from.
Or, this could be one of their traditions/ myths/ legends regarding their society, similar to the Masons nowadays, for example--you know, the more ancient and mysterious, the better they must be.
Besides, it's best for marketing a product to either be an "ancient Chinese secret" or the newest, most advanced thing there is. It's either "Since 1894" or "Under New Management".
Moroni says that secret combinations are all over, and pretty much the same. And the serious ones seem to be.
----------------
Where the Jaredites lived gives us another clue that more of them than Coriantumr alone must have interacted with the later people of Zarahemla or Nephites. It is commonplace for students of the geography of Book of Mormon events to suppose that the Jaredites dwelt only in the land northward. True, at one point in time centuries before their destruction, during a period of expansion, the Jaredite King Lib constructed "a great city by the narrow neck of land" (Ether 10:20). At that time it was said that "they did preserve the land southward for a wilderness, to get game" (21), but it is unlikely such a pattern of exclusive reserve could continue. The fact is that it makes no sense to build a "great city" adjacent to pure wilderness. Rather, we can safely suppose that, in addition to whatever limited area was kept as a royal game preserve, routine settlers existed southward from the new city and that they provided a support population for it. At the least there would have been peoples further toward the south with whom the city would trade whether or not they were counted as Lib's subjects.
------------------
****What? I clearly miss the logical thinking here. Why doesn't it "[make sense]"? Why can one "safely suppose"? Why would "routine settlers" have to have existed "southward from the new city" and "[provide] a support poulation for it"? The amount of imagination here makes my head spin. . .
------------------
As population grew over the nearly thousand years of Jaredite history after Lib's day, more local settlements in parts of the land southward could have developed due to normal population growth and spread. Not all of those peoples would have shown up at the final slaughter at Ramah. Likely some of the survivors in the land southward became mixed with descendants of Mulek's group, thus accounting for part of their "exceedingly numerous" force and, of course, the presence of corn, sheum, and neas. But aside from the likely presence of Jaredite descendants incorporated into Zarahemla's group, entirely separate peoples could also have resided within interaction range. Archaeological, art, and linguistic materials make clear that ethnic variety is an old phenomenon everywhere in tropical America where the Book of Mormon groups might have been located (mainline archaeologists who have not examined the literature on this topic continue generally to ignore that variety). Even Joseph Smith recognized such a possibility. He once "quoted with approval from the pulpit reports of certain Toltec legends which would make it appear that those people had come [to Mexico] originally from the Near East in the time of Moses."18 And why not, Nibley continued? "There is not a word in the Book of Mormon to prevent the coming to this hemisphere of any number of people from any part of the world at any time, provided only that they come with the direction of the Lord; and even this requirement must not be too strictly interpreted," considering the condition of the "Mulekites" after their arrival.19 A particularly interesting case of such external evidence involves a scene on a monument located at an archaeological site that I consider to be the prime candidate for the city of Mulek. As explained elsewhere,20 the site of La Venta in southern Mexico qualifies remarkably well as the city of Mulek. It was one of the great centers of Olmec civilization, whose distribution and dates remind us of Jaredite society. Stela 3 at La Venta is a basalt slab fourteen feet high and weighing fifty tons.21 It is thought to date to about 600 B.C., or a little later, at or just after the late Olmec (Jaredite?) inhabitants abandoned the site. Carved on the stone is a scene in which a person of obvious high social status, whose facial features look like those shown in some earlier Olmec art, confronts a prominent man who appears to a number of (non-Mormon) art historians like a Jew. This scene has been interpreted by archaeologists as a formal encounter between leaders of different ethnic groups. For instance, the late expert on Mesoamerican art, Tatiana Proskouriakoff, considered that Stela 3 shows "two racially distinct groups of people" and that "the group of the [Jewish-looking] bearded stranger ultimately gained ascendency." She concluded, thus, that "the culture of La Venta [thereafter] contained a strong foreign component."22 Latter-day Saints may wonder whether Mulek or some other person in his party might even be represented on Stela 3, considering the date and the location at a site very suitable to have been the "city of Mulek." At the least we see that ethnic and cultural variety existed in Mesoamerica where and when we would expect evidence of Mulek's group to show up.23
---------------
**** Ether 11:20: "And in the days of Coriantor there also came many prophets, and prophesied of great and marvelous things, and cried repentance unto the people, and except they should repent the Lord God would EXECUTE JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM TO THEIR UTTER DESTRUCTION;
Ether 11:21: And that the Lord God would SEND OR BRING FORTH ANOTHER PEOPLE TO POSSESS THE LAND, BY HIS POWER, AFTER THE MANNER BY WHICH HE BROUGHT THEIR FATHERS."
If this was not the Lehites, then who? "Another people" doesn't sound like "many peoples". Or that any other people there at the time would possess their land.
--------------
Why the Nephite Record Does Not Comment on "Others" Why, given the points we have been examining, didn't Nephite historians mention "other" people more explicitly in their record? Several reasons may be suggested. First, note that the record does clearly mention the people of Zarahemla and the descendants of others who arrived with Mulek and even tells us that they outnumbered the Nephites by descent (see Mosiah 25:1). Yet these writers remain uninterested in the "Mulekites" as a group, not even offering a name for them in their entirety. The entire body of information on them would hardly occupy a single page in our scripture.
-------------------
****And yet, they are clearly mentioned.
-------------------
This lack of concern has to do with the fact that the focus of the record is the Nephites. To the Nephite record keepers, all others were insignificant except as they challenged Nephite rulership. Apparently the "Mulekites" never did so as a group unified by their origin. Probably no such challenge occurred because they never saw themselves as a single group. A comparison might be made to the descendants of the early American colonizing ship, the Mayflower; there is minor prestige in being a descendant of someone on that ship, but there has never been a Mayflower movement in our country's politics. Similarly, it appears that no powerful origin account or belief system united those on the ship that brought Mulek (as there was for Nephites and Lamanites). Instead they only constituted a residual category of interest to us in historical retrospect. When there was challenge to Nephite control, it is said to have come from "dissenters," or "Amlicites," or "king-men," some or all of whom might have been of "Mulekite" descent, but that fact was evidently incidental. No doubt a majority of the "Mulekites" went right on peacefully accepting domination by Nephite overlords, as Mosiah 25:13 makes clear.
-------------------
****How does this fit in with all the previous talk about dissenters of Mulekite origin, with Jaredite names, etc.? It doesn't.
-------------------
What view of the Lamanites did the Nephites have that sheds light on the question of "others"? We may see a clarifying parallel to the Nephite-Lamanite relationship in how Mormons viewed "the Indians" in western America during the nineteenth century. Pioneer historical materials mention "Indians" about the same proportion of the time as the Nephite record mentions the "Mulekites," that is, rarely. This was not because the natives were a mystery. On the contrary, Latter-day Saint pioneers had an explanation for "the Indians" which they considered adequate--they were generic "Lamanites." With a few exceptions at a local level, no more detailed labelling or description was ever considered needed. Overall, "Indians"/"Lamanites" were of only occasional concern, as long as they did not make trouble. When they were a problem, the attention they received was, again, normally local. Periodic attempts to convert the Indians rarely had much practical effect, and this positive concern for them tended to be overwhelmed by the "practical" aim to put the natives in their (dominated) place. Wouldn't the Nephites have dealt with their "Lamanites" about like the Latter-day Saints with theirs? (Notice the mixed message--hope for converting the benighted ones but tough military measures, too--familiar in early Utah history, found in Enos 1:14, 20, and 24.)
-----------------
****What?
-----------------
Thus Nephites in a particular area might have noted differences between one group or subtribe of "Lamanites" and another, while people who talked about the situation only from what they heard in the capital city would have generalized, with little interest in details. For example, it is only in the detailed account of Ammon's missionary travels that we learn that Lamoni and his people were not simply "Lamanites" in general but tribally distinct Ishmaelites inhabiting a region of their own (see Alma 17:19, 21).
--------------
****Yes, I can pretty much agree here.
Lamoni, though descended from Ishmael, also had a father who was king over all the Lamanites; Lamoni ruled over a place that seemed to have been mostly Ishmaelites; Lamoni, the king's son, was given a kingdom to rule over, under his father, which follows the established pattern of Lamanite rule at that time. (See Alma 18:9, 22:1)
--------------
At the level of concern of the keepers of the overall Nephite account, nevertheless, one "Lamanite" must have seemed pretty much equivalent to any other "Lamanite," as Jacob 1:14 assumes. The Nephites' generic category of "Lamanite" could have lumped together a variety of groups differing in culture, ethnicity, language, and physical appearance without any useful purpose being served, in Nephite eyes, by distinguishing among them.
----------------
****Like with the Nephites.
----------------
(Of course the original records may have gone into more detail, but all we have is
Mormon's edited version of those, plus the small plates of Nephi.) A final reason why the scripture lacks more explicit mention of "others" may be that the writers did not want to waste space on their plates telling of things they considered obvious or insignificant. For example, they nowhere tell us that the Nephites made and used pottery. Any ancient historian would be considered eccentric if he had written, "And some of our women also made pottery." To anyone of his time it would seem absurd to say so because "everybody knows that." The obvious is rarely recorded in historical documents because it seems pointless to do so.
------------------
****Slight difference between pottery and others. Anyway, there are mentions of some of these things a few times in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 18:24-25; 2 Nephi 5:15; Jarom 1:8; Mosiah 9:9; Mosiah 10:4-5; Mosiah 11; Alma 1:29; Alma 62:29; Helaman 3:14; Helaman 6:11-13; 3 Nephi 3:22; Ether 2:1-3; Ether 10:23-27).
But, the point is very possible.
------------------
"The people of Zarahemla," "the Lamanites," "the Amalekites," and the like get mentioned in the Book of Mormon, not because of who they were but because of particular things they did in relation to the Nephites. They were historically significant actors in some ways at certain moments from a Nephite point of view. But neither Mormon nor any other Nephite writer would waste time and precious space on the plates by adding pointlessly, "Incidentally, there were some other bunches of people hanging around too."
----------------
****While I agree with the first part--come on, how much space would that have taken? There must be other reasons.
----------------
"Others" among the Lamanites We have already seen that the initial Lamanite faction had an edge in numbers when the Nephites' first split from them. We have also seen that the numbers of Nephites implied by statements and events in their early history was greater than natural births could have accounted for. Growth in population of the Lamanites is still harder to explain. Jarom 1:5-6 tells us that not long after 400 B.C. the Nephites had "waxed strong in the land," yet the Lamanites "were exceeding more numerous than were . . . the Nephites." Earlier, Enos 1:20 had characterized the Lamanites as wild, ferocious, blood-thirsty hunters, eating raw meat and wandering in the wilderness mostly unclothed. Jarom echoes that picture (see Jarom 1:6). I suggest that we should discount this dark portrait of the Lamanites on account of its clear measure of ethnic prejudice and its lack of first-hand observation on the part of the Nephite record keepers.24
-------------
****What's this--throw out from the Book of Mormon what doesn't fit our thinking?
Was it true, or not? Why does dark truth definitely have to be the result of "ethnic prejudice" and "lack of first-hand observation"? It doesn't. Perhaps the continual descriptions might clue us in that that's really the way it was! It was obvious to the Nephites, as they had tried many times and ways to preach to the Lamanites, and ethnic prejudice hardly seems the case as we see these men pray for, plan for, and labor for the welfare of the Lamanites and their return to Christ.
I think the reason the author wants us to discount this view is that such a generalization makes it much harder to accept others/ outsiders.
------------
But regardless of qualifications, we are left with the fact that the Lamanites, who are said to have been supported by a hunting economy, greatly outnumbered the Nephites, who were cultivators. This situation is so contrary to the record of human history that it cannot be accepted at face value.25 Typically, hunting peoples do not capture enough food energy in the form of game, plus non-cultivated plant foods they gather, to feed as large or as dense a population as farmers can. Almost invariably, settled agriculturalists successfully support a population a number of times greater. It would be incredible for Lamanites living only under the economic regime reported by Enos to have supported the superior population he credits to them.
-----------------
****This does seem difficult to explain. (I have already explained more about this back at the beginning, when talking about the promised land.) Of course, if you have millions of deer, bison, tapirs, sheep, whatever, running all over, and especially if you can capture and raise them, then it's very possible. For example, by the time of Ammon, King Lamoni and other Lamanites raised flocks.
-----------------
How can we explain their numbers? Only one explanation is plausible. The early Lamanites had to have included, or to have dominated, other people who lived by cultivation. Their crops would have been essential to support the growth in overall "Lamanite" population. Such a situation is not uncommon in history; predatory hunter/warrior groups often enough have come to control passive agriculturalists off whose production they feed via taxation or tribute. Given the personal aggressiveness of Laman and Lemuel, it would be no surprise if they had immediately begun seizing power over localized populations of "other" farmers if they encountered any. After all, that is what the Lamanites later did to the Zeniffites, taking a "tax" of up to half their production (see Mosiah 7 and 9). But this scenario works only if a settled, non-Lehite population already existed in the land of promise when Lehi came. The text goes on to tell us that by the first century B.C. Lamanite expansion had spread "through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers' first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore" (Alma 22:28). Note that a phrase in this supports the picture of a Lamanite warrior element coexisting with settled people: "the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents."
----------------
****Or, this could mean "Scattered small-group forest people vs. those living in villages/ towns". I believe this is the more possible, yet again, the scriptures continually seem to limit the composition of both the Lamanites and the Nephites (already shown previously--search for "consist of").
---------------
Hence only part of the Lamanite population were hunters, while others were settled, presumably farming, people. The latter group would have been of relatively little concern to the Nephites and thus would not be further mentioned by them because it was the wild types who spearheaded the attacks on the Nephites.
-----------------
****However likely this might be, this is only an assumption.
-----------------
Confirmation of the pattern of dominance of subject groups comes from the mention of cities and other evidences of a civilized way of life among the Lamanites. The brief Nephite record does not bother to tell how the transition from the early nomadic Lamanite pattern to settled life occurred, but the text assures us that change they did, at least some of them. By the time the sons of Mosiah reached the land of Nephi to preach, about 90 B.C., "the Lamanites and the Amalekites and the people of Amulon had built a great city, which was called Jerusalem" (Alma 21:2). However, the Amalekites and Amulonites are pictured as exploiters of others, not as basic builders of advanced culture. They could not have flourished had there not been an infrastructure of agricultural producers to support them. Other cities, too, are mentioned among the Lamanites--Nephi, Lemuel, Shimnilom by name, plus others unnamed (see Alma 23:4, 11-12).26 The Nephites kept on reporting the daunting scale of Lamanite military manpower (see Alma 2:24, 28; 49:6; 51:11; Helaman 1:19). This implies a base population from which the Lamanites could keep drawing an almost inexhaustible supply of sword fodder.27 Such a large population is even more difficult to account for by natural increase of the original Laman-Lemuel faction than in the case of Nephi's group, for the eventual Lamanite absolute numbers are disproportionately high.
--------------
****Here you fail to mention that they held to marriage between one man and one woman only (Jacob 3:5-6), which would help your theory.
--------------
None of this demographic picture makes sense unless "others" had become part of the Lamanite economy and polity. Beyond warfare, other unexpected developments among the Lamanites also demand explanation. Comparative study of ancient societies tells us that their system of rulership, where a great king dominated subordinate kings whom he had commissioned, as reported in Alma 20-22, would be unlikely except among a fairly populous farming people. Also, a "palace" was used by the Lamanite great king (see Alma 22:2; perhaps the same structure Noah had earlier built as reported in Mosiah 11:9), but no such building is indicated for the Nephites.
-------------------
****Two points: remember that this "land of Nephi" (Alma 22:1: ". . .Aaron and his brethren [were] led by the Spirit to the land of Nephi, even to the house of the king which was over all the land save it were the land of Ishmael; and he was the father of Lamoni."
Alma 22:2: And it came to pass that he went in unto him into the king's palace. . .") was the previous land of the Nephites, and the seat of the Nephite kings. No doubt the Lamanites took over and used the buildings the Nephites had constructed.
Also, "palace" need not be much; in other words, it could be loosely used.
------------------
The institution of kingship was obviously highly developed among the Lamanites. Moreover, the logistics of Lamanite military campaigns, which they carried on at a great distance from home territory (see, for example, Alma 50:11-32), calls for considerable technological and sociocultural sophistication as well as a large noncombatant population. It is true that dissenters from among the Nephites provided certain knowledge to the Lamanites (compare Alma 47:36), but local human and natural resources on a large scale and a fairly long tradition of locally adaptive technology would have been required in order to bring the ambitions of the dissenters to realization. As we saw in the case of the crops passed down from earlier times, it is quite unthinkable that all this cultural apparatus was simply invented by the reportedly backward Lamanites within the span of a few centuries. Some, perhaps most, of the required cultural background derived from pre-Lehite peoples.
---------------------
****What technology would be necessary for war? Dry the meat; carry it; make a few weapons, especially stones and arrows (Alma 49:2), and learn to use them--which Laman & Lemuel already knew how to do (1 Nephi 15:16); run to carry messages; a king to tell them go fight our enemies (or die) (Alma 47:1-3); etc. Now, where's that technology?
---------------------
As we saw above, Lehi's prophecy in 2 Nephi 2 called for "other nations" to be near at hand and influential upon the Lamanites after their rebellion against Nephi and the Lord became obvious.
The point is recalled here in connection with our discussion of the growth in Lamanite numbers. Despite the brevity of the text about Lamanite society there are specific statements and situations that alert us to the presence of "others" among them. Two key cases involve those identified as the Amulonites and the Amalekites. The Amulonites originated when the fugitive priests of Noah captured twenty-four Lamanite women as substitute wives (see Mosiah 20:4-5, 18, 23). From that small beginning, within fifty or sixty years their numbers rose to where they "were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites" (Alma 43:14). Since the Nephites commanded tens of thousands of soldiers at the time, the Amulonites would have had almost the same number.
-----------------
****I don't find "tens of thousands" in the Book of Mormon near this time for the Lamanites or Nephites. Help me, please.
----------------
Using a common figure of one soldier for each five of the total population, this would put their entire group at 100,000 or more. But by natural increase the twenty-four priests and their wives could not have produced even a hundredth of that total in the time indicated. Moreover they had had their own demographic difficulties, for we learn from Alma 25:4 that at one point in time "almost all the seed of Amulon and his brethren, who were the priests of Noah," had been "slain by the hands of the Nephites." So who were left to constitute this large people? The only possible explanation for their dramatic growth in numbers is that they gained control over and incorporated "other" people.
--------------
**** Also, I think a problem is with the interpretation of the scripture. Let's look at Alma 43:13-14:
"And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah."
"Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed."
It would be better to read like this:
". . .a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael; and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah."
"Now those descendants (of all the dissenters) were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed."
It's not talking about just the descendants of the priests of Noah. This is clear from what you bring up shortly, about Alma 25--most of the descendants of the priests of Noah had already been slain, and the rest were in hiding, and enemies to the Lamanites.
Also, the last sentence says that "thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with THEIR BRETHREN. . ." "Others" hardly seems to constitute brethren.
About war numbers:
Remember in the wars of Amalickiah that getting only thousands to the addition of one quarter of the land was a huge boost in numbers to the Nephite army.
In Alma 2:19, it says that ". . .the Nephites did pursue the Amlicites all that day, and did slay them with much slaughter, insomuch that there were SLAIN OF THE AMLICITES TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY AND TWO SOULS; and there were SLAIN OF THE NEPHITES SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY AND TWO SOULS."
It continues: ". . .having buried those who had been slain--now the number of the slain WERE NOT NUMBERED, because of the greatness of their number. . .(Alma 3:1)".
So, in final, the number slain was many more than the day previous. That's a major war, and huge losses mostly on the part of the Amlicites, but for the Nephites and Lamanites, too. Still it's at the low end of the tens of thousands.
With the Nephites always having wars, rebellions, and dissensions among themselves, their numbers would always be lessening; thus the population comparisons between them and the Lamanites need not always be ever-increasing numbers--like two steps forward in population growth, one step back. This is probably the strongest argument for your theory.
After fighting and retreating, it says: Mormon 2:7: "And it came to pass that WE DID GATHER IN OUR PEOPLE AS FAST AS IT WERE POSSIBLE, THAT WE MIGHT GET THEM TOGETHER IN ONE BODY.
Mormon 2:8: But behold, the land was filled with robbers and with Lamanites; and notwithstanding the great destruction which hung over my people, they did not repent of their evil doings; therefore there was blood and carnage spread throughout all the face of the land, both on the part of the Nephites and also on the part of the Lamanites; and it was one complete revolution throughout all the face of the land.
Mormon 2:9: And now, the Lamanites had a king, and his name was Aaron; and he came against us with an army of FORTY AND FOUR THOUSAND. And behold, I withstood him with FORTY AND TWO THOUSAND. And it came to pass that I beat him with my army that he fled before me. And behold, all this was done, and three hundred and thirty years had passed away.
Mormon 2:15: ". . .for I saw THOUSANDS OF THEM (not tens of thousands) hewn down in open rebellion against their God, and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land. And thus three hundred and forty and four years had passed away. . .
Mormon 2:25: And it came to pass that we did contend with an ARMY OF THIRTY THOUSAND AGAINST AN ARMY OF FIFTY THOUSAND. And it came to pass that we did stand before them with such firmness that they did flee from before us.
Yet, still, Mormon says that "And now all these things had been done, and there had been THOUSANDS SLAIN ON BOTH SIDES, both the Nephites and the Lamanites. (Mormon 4:9).
Again, armies here never exceeded 50,000, and the slain were counted by Mormon in the thousands.
After thousands slain on both sides, the final battle was with at least 230,000 Nephites, which Mormon says was ". . .yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen." (Mormon 6:15)
But these later examples are different because they occur after 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi.
-------------
(These were not Lamanites per se, it appears from Alma 23:14 and 43:13.)
-------------
****No, they weren't. But they weren't others, either. We read in Alma 22:7:
"And Aaron answered him and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And the king said: I know that the Amalekites say that there is a God, and I have granted unto them that they should build sanctuaries, that they may assemble themselves together to worship him. . . "
Here we learn that dissenting Nephites who lived among the Lamanites could still maintain their separateness from the Lamanites, and could possibly have different rules and/ or favors granted to them.
-------------
We see how this was done through a political pattern sketched in Alma 25:5. Amulonite survivors of their wars with the Nephites "having fled into the east wilderness . . . usurped the power and authority over the Lamanites [in Nephite terms]" dwelling in that area. They had already had a lesson in usurpation when they got control over Alma and his people in the land of Helam. "The king of the Lamanites had granted unto Amulon that he should be a king and a ruler over his [own Amulonite] people, who were in the land of Helam," as well as over subject Alma and company (Mosiah 23:39). In the eyes of the rapacious priests and those who followed and modelled after them, political and economic exploitation of subject populations must have seemed a much superior way to "earn" a good living than the humdrum labor they had had to resort to in their original land, where they "had begun to till the ground" (Mosiah 23:31). We cannot say definitely what the origins of the subjects were who ended up under Amulonite control, but their startling numbers indicate that Lehi's descendants alone cannot account for them.
----------------
**** Alma 25:5: "And the REMAINDER, HAVING FLED INTO THE EAST WILDERNESS, and having usurped the power and authority over the lamanites, caused that many of the Lamanites should perish by fire because of their belief--"
Alma 25:6: "For many of them, after having suffered much loss and so many afflictions, began to be stirred up in remembrance of the words which Aaron and his brethren had preached to them in their land; therefore they began to disbelieve the traditions of their fathers, and to believe in the Lord, and that he gave great power unto the Nephites; and thus there were many of them converted in the wilderness."
Alma 25:7: "And it came to pass that those RULERS WHO WERE THE REMNANT OF THE CHILDREN OF AMULON caused that they should be put to death, yea, all those that believed in these things."
Alma 25:8: "Now this martyrdom caused that many of their brethren should be stirred up to anger; and there began to be contention in the wilderness; and THE LAMANITES BEGAN TO HUNT THE SEED OF AMULON AND HIS BRETHREN AND BEGAN TO SLAY THEM; AND THEY FLED INTO THE EAST WILDERNESS."
Alma 25:9: "And behold they are HUNTED AT THIS DAY BY THE LAMANITES. . . "
It says they were over the Lamanites, not others.
Also, the descendants of Amulon and the priests don't seem to have lasted long at all--it sounds to me like we're talking months at the most--not a lot of time to have lots of children (unless you had a different concubine every night or so). Remember also, this happened a long time before Alma 43, including the part about the seed of Amulon being hunted and slain. That they were able to mend their relationship, and come back and join the Lamanites, is excluded by Alma 25:9.
---------------
More mysterious are the Amalekites. They are first mentioned at Alma 21:1-8 where a tiny window on their culture and location in part of the land of Nephi is opened for us. The time was approximately 90 B.C., but they were already powerful, being mentioned on a par with the Amulonites. Nothing is said about when or under what circumstances they originated. Alma 21:8 has an Amalekite speaker contrast "thy [Aaron's, and thus Mosiah's] fathers" from "our [Amalekite] fathers." This seems to set their ancestry apart from that of the core Nephites in Zarahemla, but neither were they from the Lamanite side, for Alma 43:13 calls them dissenters from the Nephites. The Amalekite questioner further implies that his forebears included men who spoke prophetically. Could they have been of Mulek's group, or of the Jaredites, or of still another people? At least the presence of the Amalekites assures us that the Book of Mormon text as we now have it does not include all the information it might have about peoples in the land of Nephi lumped together by the Nephite writers as "Lamanites."
--------------
****Actually, there is something said about where they originated:
Alma 43:13: "And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, AND ALL THOSE WHO HAD DISSENTED FROM THE NEPHITES, WHO WERE AMALEKITES and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah."
The Amalekites were Nephite dissenters.
Once more, we see who the Lamanites consisted of--no mention of outside groups.
Also, we see nothing about who joined the Nephites to increase their numbers--in fact, "ALONE" implies there were none.
Again, they could have come from the servants of Lehi who remained with Nephi, and might have broken off shortly after. In fact, they need not have anything that special about them--they could have simply had a man named Amalek who led dissenters away from the Nephites.
-------------
Alma 24:29 raises the possibility of still another group being present. It says that among those converted by the Nephite missionaries, "there were none who were [1] Amalekites or [2] Amulonites or [3] who were of the order of Nehor, but they [the converts] were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel." This phrasing leaves unclear whether those "of the order of Nehor" were merely Amalekites or Amulonites who followed the Nehorite persuasion, or whether, as seems equally likely, the Nehorites constituted a group of their own. Nehor was, after all, a Jaredite personal name; that "order" may have been particularly oriented to Jaredite survivors.
----------------
****The order of Nehor was a religious group, not a lineal/ racial group. It's very believable that problems with the law/ freedom from law would cause some of this order to flee to the Lamanites (people such as the people of Ammonihah, who were guilty of rebellion).
We see this clearly enough in the verse right before the one quoted, in Alma 24:28: "Now the greatest number of those of the Lamanites who slew so many of their brethren were AMALEKITES AND AMULONITES, the GREATEST NUMBER OF WHOM WERE AFTER THE ORDER OF THE NEHORS." And in Alma 21:4: "And it came to pass that Aaron came to the city of Jerusalem, and first began to preach to the Amalekites. And he began to preach to them in their synagogues, for they had built synagogues after the order of the Nehors; for MANY OF THE AMALEKITES AND THE AMULONITES WERE AFTER THE ORDER OF THE NEHORS."
Well, that is, if there were Jaredite survivors.
---------------
The expression "Lamanitish servants," applied to certain of King Lamoni's servants (Alma 17:26), invites our consideration in this connection. Why not merely "Lamanite servants?" What is the significance of the -ish suffix? The English dictionary sense that is most applicable would be "somewhat, approximate." How might those servants have been only "somewhat" Lamanite?
The enigma arises again in a statement in Alma 3:7 referring to "Ishmaelitish women." We are told there that "the Lord God set a mark upon . . . Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women." Of course the wives of Nephi, Sam, and Zoram were all Ishmaelite women (see 1 Nephi 16:7). Does "Ishmaelitish women" mean something else here? If so, what, in terms of ethnicity and descent?
------------------
****Good questions.
"Lamanitish servants" might signify main group Lamanites, subgroup Ishmaelites--of Ishmael by descent/ lineage, but included in the Lamanites.
The1913 Webster's Dictionary says that "-ish" is "a suffix used to form adjectives from nouns and from adjectives. It denotes relation, resemblance, similarity. . ." That helps us--it is used to form an adjective (Ishmaelitish) from a noun (Ishmaelite). In the Wordsmyth Dictionary, the first definition for "-ish" is "belonging or pertaining to; of; from"; for example, "Turkish"; the second definition is "having the qualities of; typical of; similar to"; for example, "mannish"; the third is "given to; preoccupied with"; for example, "faddish"; the fourth is "somewhat; approximately"; for example, "a fortyish woman". While the second, third, and fourth definitions cause muddiness, the first makes it very easy to explain.
Or perhaps, that they were not Nephite dissenters; in a sense, the Amulonites were, and Ammon was.
-----------------
In at least two other places in the text I see possible evidence of "others." Mosiah 24:7 reports the Lamanites' practicing "all manner of wickedness and plunder, except it were among their own brethren." Now, given this verse's context, those plundered do not appear to have been Nephites. Who is referred to? Possibly the statement means that the Lamanites considered it acceptable to plunder any community other than those involving immediate relatives or neighbors, but such a limited sense of "their own brethren" is without precedent in the text. Rather it seems to me that this expression tells us that certain portions of the Lamanites classified other segments of the population in their lands as being of different origin and thus subject to less protection. That is, Mosiah 24:7 could mean that Lamanites were plundering "Lamanites" not of that bloodline, and vice versa. Amulonites and Amalekites could have fallen into the target category as well as the Zeniffites, who certainly were "plundered" (see Mosiah 9:14). Yet it seems to me that plunderable "others," of non-Lehite stock, may have been at odds with "the [real] Lamanites" and thus have come into conflict with them (compare Mormon 8:8).
--------------
****It seems to mean not.
Mormon 8:8: "And behold, it is the hand of the Lord which hath done it. And behold also, the Lamanites are at war one with another; and the whole face of this land is one continual round of murder and bloodshed; and no one knoweth the end of the war.
Mormon 8:9: And now, behold, I say no more concerning them, for THERE ARE NONE SAVE IT BE THE LAMANITES AND ROBBERS THAT DO EXIST UPON THE FACE OF THE LAND."
This happened at the end, when the Nephites were gone. To whom would all the spoils of war--the women, the buildings and houses, the gold and riches, etc., go? Also, it seems that towards the end the Lamanites increased in wickedness also.
-------------
That could explain Helaman 5:21, where there is mention of "an army of the Lamanites," whose existence in their homeland is strange since no war against the Nephites was going on or threatened.
----------------
**** Helaman 5:20: And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did PROCEED FROM THENCE TO GO TO THE LAND OF NEPHI.
Helaman 5:21: And it came to pass that they were TAKEN BY AN ARMY OF THE LAMANITES and cast into prison; yea, even in that same prison in which Ammon and his brethren were cast by the servants of Limhi.
. . .
Helaman 5:49: And there were about THREE HUNDRED SOULS who saw and heard these things; and they were bidden to go forth and marvel not, neither should they doubt.
An army of only about 300 men, stationed near the border of the two lands, next to a prison, doesn't sound strange to me. Most nations, even in times of peace and no threatenings, still have standing armies. Also, were the Lamanites following an earlier pattern found in Alma 18:2, we see that each minor Lamanite kingdom had their own army, and at this time, there were probably righteous Lamanites, and others who weren't so--just the fact that they arrested Nephi and Lehi, then were going to kill them, lends credibility to this army not being righteous and peaceful. What if there was also the threat of Nephite Gadianton robbers? Also, at this time there were Nephite dissenters living in the lands. Though they were with the Lamanites, I doubt that the Lamanites completely trusted them.
---------------
When we consider the obvious question of what language was used among the Lamanites, we learn nothing useful about "others." No indication is given of the use of translators or of problems in communication resulting from language difference. When Lamanites and Nephites are described as talking or writing to each other, nothing is said or hinted about what tongue they used. Their dialects that had diverged separately from the Hebrew which Nephi and Laman shared back in Jerusalem, if still spoken centuries later, might have been similar enough to permit everyday communication (although conversations about conceptual topics like religion would fare worse). Note, however, that "the language of Nephi" which Mosiah 24:4 and 6 report as beginning to be taught by Nephite dissenters "among all the people of the Lamanites" was a writing system, not a tongue as such, which 6 makes clear.
----------------
**** Mosiah 24:6 does not make it clear that it was just the writing system; it could have also been a language AND a writing system. Also, it does not say that they taught them to write the Nephite language; just to write, so it could have been a writing system for the Lamanite language, which doesn't seem to exist before that, which Mosiah 24:7 seems to support. It seems to be saying that they not only taught them the language, but also some other cultural things--something any EFL teacher can relate to.
Mosiah 24:4: "And he appointed teachers of the brethren of Amulon in every land which was possessed by his people; and thus the language of Nephi began to be taught among all the people of the Lamanites.
Mosiah 24:5: And they were a people friendly one with another; nevertheless they knew not God; neither did the brethren of Amulon teach them anything concerning the Lord their God, neither the law of Moses; nor did they teach them the words of Abinadi;
---------------
Whether speakers of "other" languages were present or involved we simply cannot say on the basis of the brief record. The dark skin attributed to the Lamanites has been interpreted by some readers of the Book of Mormon as indicating that Laman, Lemuel, and those of Ishmael's family had mixed with "others" bearing darker pigmentation. The problem with that view is that the first mention of it is by Nephi himself (2 Nephi 5:21) shortly after the initial split in Lehi's group. The abruptness of the appearance of this "mark" upon the Lamanites cannot be reconciled with genetic mixing with a resident population for that would have required at least a generation to become evident in skin coloring. Again, near the time of Christ those Lamanites "who had united with the Nephites" had the curse "taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15). The idea that those changes had a genetic basis is not sustainable. It is indeed possible that "others" who, we have seen, must have been nearby, were more heavily pigmented than the Nephites and they may have mixed with the Lamanites, but we cannot confirm this from statements in the record.
---------------
Let's see what else the Book of Mormon says:
"And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to THE MARK WHICH WAS SET UPON THEIR FATHERS, WHICH WAS A CURSE UPON THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANSGRESSION AND THEIR REBELLION AGAINST THEIR BRETHREN, WHO CONSISTED OF NEPHI, JACOB, AND JOSEPH, AND SAM, who were just and holy men" (Alma 3:6).
"And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God SET A MARK UPON THEM, YEA, UPON LAMAN AND LEMUEL, AND ALSO THE SONS OF ISHMAEL, AND ISHMAELITISH WOMEN" (Alma 3:7).
"And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction" (Alma 3:8).
"And it came to pass that WHOSOEVER DID MINGLE HIS SEED WITH THAT OF THE LAMANITES DID BRING THE SAME CURSE UPON HIS SEED" (Alma 3:9).
Sorenson is correct here--genetics truly is not the cause here, though it might contribute naturally in some ways to the seed being dark. The curse first came upon Laman, Lemuel, the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. Then, this curse is strong enough that no matter who mixes with them, the curse carries over to all the children. While it happens that the children of mixed races can be born dark, it is not likely that all the children will be like this. That is why you often see some children dark, and some light. But this curse made ALL the offspring dark.
---------------

Does the Book of Mormon Really Prove "Others"? Part 1

A Partial Rebuttal of "When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?" by John L. Sorenson, and other similar articles by other authors

by

grego ©2004, 2005

Part 1

Over the past few years, a line of thinking and persuasions for it have become prevalent in LDS writings--that there were "others" in the Book of Mormon lands, and even though the Book of Mormon might not come out directly and clearly say so, there are lots of places that prove it, backed up with other areas that provide evidence.

This article is a response to the article "When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?" by John L. Sorenson, of FARMS, in which the claim is made that the Book of Mormon is full of proof that there were others there before, during, and immediately after the Lehites, and that there was plentiful interaction between them and the Lehites. I aim to show that the Book of Mormon evidence does not prove outside groups, and that most all of the instances that are used that try to show that it does, are actually based on wrested interpretation and speculation--kind of like Cinderella's sisters trying to scrunch their large feet into that small shoe.

Since others since have picked up many lines of his reasoning (Brant Gardner, Michael Roper, Michael R. Ash, James E. Smith, Richard D. Grant), and even repeat the same in many articles, I also respond to some of these, especially where they follow the same line of reasoning, but add on to or differ somewhat from Sorenson's.

Proving whether there were others there or not, whether in the Book of Mormon or otherwise, is not my purpose, though I sometimes note other thoughts regarding this issue (from the Book of Mormon)--in either direction (there were or there weren't).

My purpose is to provoke much greater and intense thought and assessment about the subject. If there are evidences and proofs of "others" in the Book of Mormon, let there be; if there are not, let's not try to untextually and illogically force them!!

Author's Note:
About my writing: writing articles on the Book of Mormon, etc. is a hobby of mine, not my profession (unlike many of the authors' articles to which I am responding). I have not responded to every argument in every article--not enough time, not enough thought put into it, not enough expertise, not enough...
Also, I am not paid to write in any certain style. Therefore, a few explanations might be helpful. Lines of dashes (--------) separate the original article(s) and my response; also, an empty line before a line of dashes and an empty space after a line of dashes, along with ****, denote the writing is the original article. No empty lines means it's my response. If the author is Sorenson, I do not make any mention; if the article is from another author, I write the author's name before the section. Sometimes CAPS are used to show stress, clarity, or to single out an important part of a larger section. But aren't CAPS yelling, and very rude? Only if you want it to be. So why not italics, or bold, instead? Italics are an absolute pain to work with in some computer writing programs, and it costs too much to print bold type. Besides, my email contains caps, but not italics or bold. I started using caps here a long time ago for this, and have continued. Unelss noted, all CAPS are mine.
There might be mistakes--all sorts of mistakes, of different types. The length of the articles, the redundancy sometimes within them, the redundancy between them, the way I have tried to break them up, my redundancy in answering, interrupted work over periods of time, etc., didn't help. If you see something, please let me know. This ain't set in stone. ;)

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

When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There? John L. Sorenson
(FARMS)
When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There? - FARMS JBMS
Abstract: A number of statements in the Book of Mormon text are examined, which indicate the presence in Lehi's "promised land" of peoples other than those descended from Lehi's party. Reasons are considered why the topic is not addressed more explicitly in the record. It is concluded that there is clear evidence for the presence of "others." Several puzzles about the history of the Nephites and Lamanites are linked to the question of whether they found others already living in their promised land. It seems important enough to call for serious examination of the text of the Book of Mormon for all possible evidence. Let us first look at what the Nephite writers say about their own group. Then we will see what we can learn about other groups described or mentioned in the record. In each case we will not only look for direct data on population size, ethnicity, language, and culture but also will draw plausible inferences about those matters.

Population Growth among the Nephites Two questions about Nephite population size are of major concern. First, how fast did the Nephite group grow as a result of the natural fertility and mortality of the original party? We need to examine whether the numbers attributed to them at various points in their history can be accounted for in terms of natural increase by the Nephite portion of Lehi's group. If the numbers cannot be explained by that means, then recourse to "others" is required to account for the apparent excess.
----------------
****And who was in the original party? What about others who might not have been mentioned, such as Lehi's servants? I imagine that he had many--he was a man with a large family, and great wealth--enough that Laban, who had many servants and a high position, became so envious that he would kill for it. It would make sense that the servants went with him on the journey--otherwise, the reason Zoram went wouldn't make good sense. The record doesn't say so, but it would seem such an understood and small matter--unlike joining other groups of people, which would warrant much more mention in the Book of Mormon. For example, Lehi's daughters are mentioned only one time.
We don't know how many daughters he had, nor how many sons of Ishmael, nor his daughters, nor how many servants Ishmael might have had that went with them also, nor how many children the married ones might have already had. It is probably safe to assume that nobody among the two households was left behind in Jerusalem, as Mormon says in 3 Nephi 5:20 that ". . .he [God] brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, (and no one knew it save it were HIMSELF AND THOSE WHOM HE BROUGHT OUT OF THAT LAND)" (3 Nephi 5:20).
-------------
Roper:
After telling us that "Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael were angry with me because of the admonitions of the Lord" (2 Nephi 4:13) and were planning to kill him (2 Nephi 5:3), Nephi then relates:
And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me. Wherefore, it came to pass that 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. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words. (2 Nephi 5:5-6)
At the time the Nephites and the Lamanites separated, then, Nephi was accompanied by his own family, Zoram and Sam and their respective families, his younger brothers Jacob and Joseph, and his sisters, in addition to "all those who would go with me." Who were these others who "believed in the warnings and the revelations of God"? The most likely answer seems to be other people living in the land, not of Lehi's family.

Gardner:
The best hypothesis, then, to explain Nephi's mention of "all those who would go" is that he referred to those of the hamlet or hamlets who had joined with the Lehites and who, in recognition of the greater social and technological sophistication of the newcomers, had permitted them to occupy roles of leadership over their hamlet in exchange for the new knowledge or goods they brought with them (in addition to the gathering power of religious conversion; see 2 Nephi 5:6).
Lehi's company had every reason to accept aid from, and a merger with, local populations. Lehi's group planted seeds from the Old World, but a rapid acquisition of information about survival skills particular to the New World would have been extremely important. They would have needed to know about the local food sources that were successful, the local sources of materials for clothing, the locations and types of clay for pottery, and any number of location-specific cultural items.
Gardner:
"Does the text lend any credence to the idea that "others" had come into the Lehite colony this early? Nothing points definitively to that conclusion, but on at least one occasion (in 2 Nephi 5:6) the most plausible explanation rests squarely on the presence of "others." Nephi describes the flight of his family and of those who would follow him from the machinations of Laman and Lemuel:
And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me. Wherefore, it came to pass that 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. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words. And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. (2 Nephi 5:5-7)
The identity of "all those who would go" with Nephi rests on those who are specifically named and the probable division of Lehi's clan. Not specified among Nephi's followers are the children of Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael, thereby leading us to assume that they remained behind. A comparison of Lehi's final counsel to the sons and daughters of Laman and Lemuel (see 2 Nephi 4:3-9) with his words to the seed of Sam (see v. 11) makes the loyalties of the children of Laman and Lemuel to their fathers appear obvious. Previous alliances of the sons of Ishmael to Laman and Lemuel (see 1 Nephi 16:37; 2 Nephi 1:28), as well as their behavior immediately following Lehi's death (see 2 Nephi 4:13), suggest that they were not inclined to follow Nephi. It is rather unlikely that any of the wives chose to split into a clan separate from their husbands, and indeed the Book of Mormon indicates the early preferences of the wives of Laman and Lemuel (see 1 Nephi 7:6; 18:9) and Nephi (see v. 19), although their individual alliances at this time of division are not specifically mentioned. When we account for the named or mentioned persons and those likely to remain behind, very little room remains for "others" from the original Lehites. In fact, using individuals mentioned in the text and their logical progeny, we can account for everyone. Regardless of how the group split up, however, if "all those who would go" were only one or two people we would expect that Nephi might make mention of them, at least by their head of household, as he does for the families of Zoram, Sam, Jacob, and Joseph.
----------
****Well, this surely isn't the necessary case. We cannot expect Nephi, Mormon, or any of the other writers to act like this. We have never seen where they act as we would expect them to act, or write as we would expect them to write. To say this, is hoping for nothing substantial. And, not everyone is mentioned. For example, what is said about Sariah, or Ishmael's wife? There is no mention of them by name as to their death or their choosing to go or remain. If they were so important, and Sariah had even been mentioned many times previously, why is she not mentioned by name at this point? So, it isn't the case.
And what, then, did the Nephites give the hamlets, in exchange for all that the hamlets gave them, such as corn, costly apparel, the location of pottery clay and metals, local food sources, etc.? Or, were these free to the Nephites? Or, did they unfairly steal this knowledge, or such? Did they buy the leadership with religion? Unlikely, right? But why would the hamlets tell them where the money was? Isn't that like the banker teaching someone how to rob a bank? And besides, if the other people that were already there had all that precious ore that was so plentiful, what good would it do the Nephites to go after it, too, unless it profited them?
----------
Gardner:
Indeed, Nephi's descriptions of "his people" begin very early to have the appearance of referring to more than the named individuals, if only in the characterizations of the activities mentioned, activities that, from Sorenson's internal perspective, would indicate a larger population.
Ash:
Who were these others who, in addition to those already mentioned, followed Nephi? It is at this point that we get the terms “people of Nephi” and “the people who were now called Lamanites” (2 Nephi 5:9, 14). It’s possible that at this point such terms took on a cultural perspective and referred to all peoples who aligned themselves with Nephi or his contentious brother.
Roper:
Significantly, at this point in the text Nephi introduces the term people of Nephi for the first time in reference to his followers (2 Nephi 5:9), a term that may be suggestive of a larger society including more than his immediate family.
------------
****"Indeed, Nephi's descriptions of "his people" begin very early to have the appearance of referring to more than the named individuals": And how does one infer that? What of his description lends to that interpretation? I am unaware of any.
What is being proposed here, is that a very small group of foreigners completely overtook the political and cultural systems from a huge group of related people, all in the space of just a few years. Possible? Yes--but highly unlikely, in my opinion. Has this happened before in history? If so, what has been the outcome?
In 2 Nephi 5:6, it says: "Wherefore, it came to pass that 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. And ALL THOSE WHO WOULD GO WITH ME WERE THOSE WHO BELIEVED IN THE WARNINGS AND THE REVELATIONS OF GOD; wherefore, they did HEARKEN UNTO MY WORDS." This seems to be people who were not of the family, but were in the group. Did Ishmael have any other daughters? If Nephi's sisters were all married to Ishmael's sons, which ones left, and how many? Servants may have later intermarried with both Nephites and Lamanites, especially after the split between the two groups. Lehi's servants, and especially anyone serving Laman and Lemuel, might have also valued this opportunity to escape from men like Laman and Lemuel, making up part of the others who respected, believed Nephi, and left with him. Did the Lehites meet up with anyone in the desert, or along the way, who joined their group?
When it talks about other groups very early in the Book of Mormon, we have the problem of language. How would a stranger understand the and believe the "warnings and the revelations of God", and be able to "HEARKEN unto [Nephi's] WORDS"? The split between the Nephites and Lamanites came very early. Unless, of course, there were people in the land who already spoke the same language. Which meant that they probably had the same, or at least similar religion, and maybe culture, too. But how probable is this? I think it is better to imagine something other than strangers as those intended in Nephi's words.
Yes, it seems likely that the "others" included some not of Nephi's immediate family.
Once again, refer to my first remark for more info. Also,
---------------
Grant:
Have you noticed in your study of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites and Nephites appear to be totally different cultures. While the Nephites continue many of the Hebrew traditions and practices, the descriptions of the Lamanites give no hint of Hebrew background. In a very short time they developed a totally new, or at least different, life style. To me, it seems probable that Laman and Lemuel, together with the sons of Ishmael, joined with a people who they found inhabiting the land upon their arrival. While Lehi's descendants adopted the life style of this established population, Laman and Lemuel, together with their descendants became leaders of this new society which Nephi and his descendants identify by the name of Nephi's eldest brother.
---------------
****Yes, they are different cultures. Remember that with Lehi, most of their lives were oriented according to the law of Moses and religion. After Lehi and the big split, the Lamanites didn't have revelation, religion, and hard work as "restrictions" anymore. When you have two groups of people with very different values, differences result quickly. The result? You very quickly have two nations. Outside cultural or religious influences are not necessary. Look at a family where some children are members of the church, and the others are not. Just after a few years of leaving home and getting married, the children's lives can be VERY different. Stick on another generation, and the differences could be so far apart you would never recognize them as being related.
---------------
Gardner:
We necessarily begin with the origin of Lehi's people in the New World. It is indisputable that Lehi and his company landed on a coast, and the coast of Guatemala is our plausible location, according to Sorenson's reconstruction. If a ship carrying Lehi's party were to have arrived on the coast of Guatemala approximately 590 years before Christ, what might they have found? Would they have been alone or were other people already there?
The archaeological survey of the Middle Formative sites for the coast of Guatemala deals with sites dated some two hundred years earlier than Lehi's landing, so we need to make some inferences. Two hundred years prior to Lehi's arrival there were seven settlements ranging from one household to twelve households.1 After this time, the coastal areas saw a peak of population density not seen until the Late Classic period, over a thousand years later. It is important to understand that the settlement areas were not necessarily larger, but simply more numerous.2
---------------
****Seven whole small settlements? spanning a whole coast, in a POSSIBLE place/ country? And of those settlements that were later discovered, could they possibly have been Lamanite settlements, instead of those of "others"?
While Guatemala might be A/ ONE "plausible location", it is far from the only possibility, and need not be accepted as one.
---------------
Sorenson:
The second question concerns the relative size of the Lamanites and other groups compared with the Nephites. An analysis has already been published of the age and gender of the personnel in Lehi's party.1 Nephite demographic history obviously begins with that information. My reading of the text puts about eleven adults and thirteen children in Nephi's group when they split with the faction of Laman and Lemuel. However, the adults included only three couples. None of the unmarried persons, including Nephi's brothers Jacob and Joseph and, probably, their sisters, would have had marriage partners available until nieces or nephews came of age, so for some interval the group's reproduction rate would have been even lower than those numbers seem to suggest. The Lamanite faction I estimate to have included four couples with the likelihood that the oldest grandchildren of Ishmael were just coming into the age of reproduction.2 Within a few years the Lamanites should have had on the order of half again as many persons as the Nephites, and that size advantage should have continued thereafter. Within a few years Nephi reports that his people "began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land" (2 Nephi 5:13).
--------------
****Nephi says, "began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land", not "began to prosper, and to multiply exceedingly in the land". Big difference. Nevertheless, let's continue.
And once again, we aren't including many others who might have been included (see previous response).
Nephi's sisters, especially the older ones already married to the sons of Ishmael, and Laman and Lemuel had had children in the desert (1 Nephi 17:20), and Nephi, Sam, and Zoram probably had a few, also (1 Nephi 18:19). Nephi's sisters could have already had a few children each before they even started out from Jerusalem, especially if they had married young, and if they were much older. Some of the desert children could have been older (by maybe four years) than Jacob. And what if some of Lehi's children were from another mother?
When you start out with a small group, it looks big fast. Comparatives and superlatives are relative, and sometimes figures of speech. Have you ever been to a large group of people seated outside, say like for a concert? Looks huge, yet, it's only a few thousand.
(Hey, how about a family reunion of my great-grandparents' posterity? Mine was so huge that it took up more than a whole huge church, and that wasn't even everyone; I hardly knew any of my relatives, and I was pretty involved with relatives. Yes, they married outside of the family; but even if they had married in the family, it would have been big.)
About 2 Nephi 5:13--note that the reason Nephi gives for this, is "And the Lord was with us; and we did prosper exceedingly"--not, "and others were with us; and we did prosper exceedingly" or "and because others helped us, we did prosper exceedingly", etc.
-------------
When about fifteen years had passed, he says that Jacob and Joseph had been made priests and teachers "over the land of my people" (2 Nephi 5:26, 28). After another ten years, they "had already had wars and contentions" with the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:34).
-------------
****"Wars" do not need large groups of people. I believe most of us don't find anything wrong with the term "war" to signify something smaller. Many gangs with small groups have "wars", such as in the term "gang wars". Look at the ways many native tribes (such as in Southeast Asia, Africa) fought/ fight battles and wars with small groups of men.
------------
Gardner:
With the addition of "others" into Nephi's party we have a larger core of people than we could possibly have with the segregation of only those who arrived with Lehi. Three events described for the early city of Nephi would appear to confirm the presence of more people than those who had come from the Old World. About thirty years after the departure from Jerusalem, Nephi describes some of the events of the establishment of the city of Nephi. First, Nephi describes having not only built dwellings, but also a temple.4 Public building projects require excess labor. Even on a modest scale, a public building takes time and resources away from daily life. The very existence of a public building suggests a larger population than the pure Old World immigrants and their natural increase.
-------------
**** All of a sudden we jump from "temple" to "public building projects", which one temple hardly justifies. This "public building" is not really what seems to be implied. It is not a government building, for example. It is a temple. It doesn't require a great many people. To us, it might be comparable to building a house--labor-intensive, takes time and work, but not that difficult for someone who sees the necessity of having one. On the other hand, there's no mention of "dwellings", but "buildings". Then, how big was Solomon's temple? In 2 Nephi 5:16, Nephi says he "did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things... but the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon". If it were a large temple, that might be a great undertaking for so few people. Notice that Nephi mentions nothing of rock or cement at this point. (In fact, nothing is mentioned of cement until Helaman 3:7.) Why couldn't it have been a wood and dirt/ clay temple? Then it wouldn't seem such a difficult task after all.
-------------
The second event that indicates the presence of a larger population is the declaration of Nephi as king.5 Small hamlets do not have kings. To name one of a dozen men "king" is an insult, not a compliment. Finally, we have the designation of Jacob and Joseph as priests and teachers "over the land of my people."6 Were we to assume only Old World peoples at this point, we have a king and two priests servicing perhaps ten households. The early Nephite political/religious structure is too top heavy for so few people. The only situation that sufficiently explains our text is the presence of non-Old World peoples at this early date.
-------------
****Kings likewise do not need lots of people under them to be called kings. I don't find any "insult" in this, in the Book of Mormon or otherwise. Do any annals of history show that to be called a king over a few people is an insult? And when does it stop being an insult and becomes a compliment? 200 men? 400 men? 700 men? Wouldn't that be convenient to know! Then we could figure out how many men there were. Remember, King Noah had many priests--at least 24, if not many more--yet his subjects were a small group, which had grown from a very small group. (The history and growth of king Zeniff's people, which could/ should serve as a subset to the Nephite growth, hasn't, unfortunately, been treated by any of these researchers, as far as I can tell.)
One ruler and two religious teachers doesn't seem too much, does it? These religious leaders were responsible for both Melchizedek ordinances and Law of Moses rites, not to mention other duties. Also, unlike the priests in Jerusalem, it is likely that Jacob and Joseph also had to work for a living.
-------------
Gardner:
The plausible presence of these "others" among the Nephites at this early point in Nephite history provides a context for a strange choice Nephi makes when recording on his personal plates. In 2 Nephi 6, Nephi records a sermon that Jacob gave. This is an odd discourse in the absence of any explanatory background. Jacob addresses a population that has recently established a city, and may still be in the throes of establishing that city and their way of life, and he preaches to them about a text from Isaiah that deals with the long distant future salvation of Israel through the Gentiles. Of all of the possible concerns for a people recently established in a new world, let alone a new city, why discourse on an event thousands of years away, and dealing with Gentiles in the Old World? To top off this mystery, we have Jacob's statement that it was Nephi, the king, who suggested this topic.7
When we look at the sermon again with our understanding of the likely presence of a goodly number of non-lineal Israelites in the early city of Nephi, that sermon becomes precisely the type of sermon that a king might request. We can easily imagine tensions between the two cultures arising, and a wise king noting the importance of "Gentiles," or non-lineal Israelites, as the salvation of Israel, or the literal descendants of Lehi. Nephi would be "likening" this future situation to that of his own community. The not-so-subtle message would be that these "others" in their midst would be essential to the salvation of the Old World lineages. Rather than a discourse on a theological future, it is a strong commentary on an important social present.
---------------
****Then why would Jacob say ". . .the words which I shall read are they which Isaiah spake concerning all the house of Israel; wherefore, they may be likened unto you, for YE ARE OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. And there are many things which have been spoken by Isaiah which may be likened unto you, because YE ARE OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (2 Nephi 6:5)--twice, he clearly says that they are of the house of Israel. Why would he give a talk to a combined audience of Israelites and "others" and say that they were all of the house of Israel? Unless they were another group of covenant people that had been led out before, right? And if that were the case, then why weren't they be given as the example when Lehi was talking about all that in 2 Nephi 1? In other words, please explain "non-lineal Israelites".
There are other reasons this topic may be considered appropriate at this time:
it is similar to a baby's blessing, with the "baby" being the Nephites; like one, it prophesies their full life; were it given at the time of a special feast/ celebration/ ceremony, it is especially fitting.
another announcement of fulfillment of the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem (after 2 Nephi 1:4), which prophecy was given before and plays an important part in Lehite matters, and which announcement was also promised before.
it's a majestic prophecy for a small group of wanderers, much like the prophecy of Joseph Smith that the church would grow to fill the earth--why did that talk take place, when those listening couldn't even fathom it?
the Nephites were already oppressed by the Lamanites and had probably already had wars with them. They were smaller in number and no doubt less inclined to violence. Ask any members living in dangerous places if those words are fitting, uplifting, and bring comfort to them, and I think you'll have a positive answer.
the scriptures speak of Christ, his omnipotence, and his saving mission.
it could be to show the Nephites that some prophecies, like Lehi's about future nations, are sometimes in the far future; however far, though, they were not forgotten.
being likened to them, that the Nephites will be sorely smitten before Christ comes, that Christ will come among them, and that afterwards they will be smitten again; but not to destruction, a lot because of the prayers of the faithful; "the Lord will be merciful unto them, that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance" (2 Nephi 6:11). Sounds just like the history of Lehi's seed.
as a reminder that Lehi's seed (and other Israelites there, and elsewhere) are not forgotten to the Lord, and are his, and the posterity will one day be gathered (see Jacob 7:41), and the promises fulfilled.
Jacob himself then gives a few reasons for this particular sermon:
"that ye might know concerning the covenants of the Lord that he has covenanted with all the house of Israel" (2 Nephi 9:1).
"[that ye might know] "[that] he has spoken unto the Jews, by the mouth of his holy prophets, even from the beginning down, from generation to generation, until the time comes that they shall be restored to the true church and fold of God; when they shall be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise" (2 Nephi 9:2).
"that ye may rejoice, and lift up your heads forever, because of the blessings which the Lord God shall bestow upon your children" (2 Nephi 9:3).
to answer many of the listeners' questions: "For I know that ye have searched much, many of you, to know of things to come; wherefore I know that ye know that our flesh must waste away and die; nevertheless, in our bodies we shall see God" (2 Nephi 9:4).
as an introduction to his discourse on the Savior and the atonement (most of 2 Nephi 9).
so that those listening might ". . .behold how great the covenants of the Lord, and how great his condescensions unto the children of men; and because of his greatness, and his grace and mercy, he has promised unto us that our seed shall not utterly be destroyed, according to the flesh, but that he would preserve them; and in future generations they shall become a righteous branch unto the house of Israel" (2 Nephi 9:53).
to show the Nephites how they fit into God's plan in the world (2 Nephi 10).
to explain that cut off from Jerusalem =\= "cast off" from the Lord (2 Nephi 10:20).
to stress that the land they were now in possession of was "a better land" and they were led there by the Lord (2 Nephi 10:20).
to remind them that "the promises of the Lord unto [us]" are "great" (2 Nephi 10:21).
to show them that they are not the only Israelites in this situation; God has led others away, too. (2 Nephi 10:21-22).
to show them that " the Lord remembereth all them who have been broken off, wherefore he remembereth us also" (2 Nephi 10:22).
to let them know that they can "cheer up" and not be controlled by their situation and negative feelings (2 Nephi 10:20, 23);
and, to let them know that now is the most important time for them, and that they need to worry more about repenting now continually feel anxiety regarding their and their seed's future. (2 Nephi 10:20, 23-24).
Now, it is true that God says:
"Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto THY SEED, and THEM WHO SHALL BE NUMBERED AMONG THY SEED, forever, for the land of their inheritance. . ." (2 Nephi 10:19). Well, we already have Zoram and Sam. No other interpretation be needed, though it's possible. Here God is already saying that there will definitely, at some time, be others who will join the seed of the Nephites. However, then Jacob says:
"And now, my beloved brethren, seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember him, and lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for WE ARE NOT CAST OFF; nevertheless, we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea" (2 Nephi 10:20).
"But great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, THERE MUST NEEDS BE MORE THAN THIS, and THEY ARE INHABITED ALSO BY OUR BRETHREN" (2 Nephi 10:22).
"For behold, THE LORD GOD HAS LED AWAY FROM TIME TO TIME FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, ACCORDING TO HIS WILL AND PLEASURE. And now behold, the LORD REMEMBERETH ALL THEM WHO HAVE BEEN BROKEN OFF, wherefore he remembereth US also" (2 Nephi 10:22).
Jacob seems to go to great lengths to comfort the Nephites about their own particular situation, and how it was not completely unique, explaining that there were many other Israelites in their same situation; were there already other Israelites there, the Nephites would hardly need to be reminded/ taught this.
----------------
Gardner:
So far we have examined points of correspondence that only require contact with another people. Now we turn to events that require the particular cultural content of Mesoamerica at the very time period of the Book of Mormon event. The first example is another of Jacob's sermons. In this case, we have Jacob's first recorded sermon in his own book, encompassing Jacob chapters 2 and 3. This sermon is much more problematic than Jacob's discourse on the future salvation by Gentiles. The first problem is his choice of topics. Jacob has two major problems with his people. He will decry their use of riches, and he will preach against their adoption of polygyny.
This sermon is much more problematic than Jacob's discourse on the future salvation by Gentiles. The first problem is his choice of topics. Jacob has two major problems with his people. He will decry their use of riches, and he will preach against their adoption of polygyny.
On the surface of the discourse we have the structural problem of the relationship between these two topics. Even given the presence of both problems in society, what is the linkage between the two that suggests that they be treated in the same sermon?
------------
****What is the "linkage between the two topics"? Gardner himself has just explained: "Jacob has two major problems with his people." Not to mention what Jacob says in Jacob 1:17--"Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, HAVING FIRST OBTAINED MINE ERRAND FROM THE LORD." And, in Jacob 2:11--"Wherefore, I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, thus came the word unto me, saying: Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and DECLARE THE WORD WHICH I SHALL GIVE THEE UNTO THIS PEOPLE." There it is--the Lord told him what to talk about. And why would these two topics "be treated in the same sermon"? For the same reason. I have spoken myself like this in church, as have many others--nothing surprising to anyone, I think, to hear more than one topic in a sermon. And besides--well, they're NOT "treated in the same sermon". Jacob finishes one, then starts the next, as we see: "And now I MAKE AN END of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I MUST SPEAK UNTO YOU CONCERNING A GROSSER CRIME, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you" (Jacob 2:22). "But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. . ." (Jacob 2:23).
------------
After the Nephites had existed as an entity for about forty years (see Jacob 1:1), their men began "desiring many wives and concubines" (Jacob 1:15).
How many descendants of the original party would there have been by that time? We can safely suppose that adaptation to foods, climate, disease, and natural hazards would have posed some problems, although we cannot quantify those effects.
Let us at least start to bracket the possible growth in numbers by setting an upper limit that is at the edge of absurdity. Assume a birth rate twice as high as in today's "less developed countries," a rate perhaps not even attainable by any population. Let us also suppose no deaths at all! Under those conditions, if the initial Nephite group was comprised of twenty-four persons, as I calculate generously, by the time of Jacob 2, they would have reached a population of 330, of whom perhaps seventy would be adult males and the same number adult females. Of course the unreality of that number means we must work downward. Using a more reasonable figure for the birth rate and factoring in deaths, we see that the actual number of adults would be unlikely to exceed half of what we first calculated--say, thirty-five males and thirty-five females. Even that is far too large to satisfy experts on the history of population growth.3 With such limited numbers as these, the group's cultural preference for "many wives and concubines" would be puzzling. The fact that the plural marriage preference for the early Nephites is reported as a cultural fact seems to call for a larger population of females. If so, it could only have come about by incorporating "other" people.
-----------------
****First, population growth; then, polygamy:
"Assume a birth rate twice as high as in today's "less developed countries," a rate perhaps not even attainable by any population."
The promised land was hardly that. There was little reason not to limit growth, as the promised land seemed to provide plenty of everything that was needed, including space/ land, crops, flocks, adequate housing, moderate climate, etc. The Book of Mormon describes very few of these above-mentioned problems; beside, wild beasts are only mentioned in other parts of the land; and, compared to surviving on raw meat in the desert (which they did for 8 years), and then surviving on a ship (which they did for a while), to these rugged desert dwellers, the promised land would have been like heaven in this regard. Especially when considering that during their whole trip to the new land, only one death is mentioned--that of Ishmael.
Nephi says animals were plentiful (see below about animals), and they brought lots of seeds (see below also); besides, lack of adaptation to foods rarely results in death. It sounds like a safe paradise, and only war would inhibit reproduction and multiplying.
If they were in Central America, they probably didn't have droughts or lack of water, cold winters with snow, etc. It seems that there was plenty of tillable land to support the population with food.
Being primarily farmers and herders, lots of children might have been a blessing to help with work.
Fevers and sickness are mentioned later in Alma 46:40, but then goes on to say not really, because of the great medicine--but when they learned that, who knows, unless they learned it from others already there from the beginning, which would mean sicknesses weren't much of a problem for their population growth. Of course, this is almost 550 years later, or so. It then says that "many died of old age" in Alma 46:41, which doesn't seem to support an argument for lots of young deaths.
Also, remember--they were Mormons! This is a people who remembers that children are a blessing of the Lord, and they desire to have as many children as possible; on the other hand, the Lamanites might have figured that the more children they had, the easier it would be to accomplish what many might have seen as their "purpose in life"--to have victory over the Nephites. It seems that land was not a problem for the Nephites, as we see in the few available instances that everyone had enough land to sustain themselves (as in Alma 3 Nephi ). Not only that, but by obeying the Lord, they were prospered in the land by Him, which means that they were definitely not in the same category as a modern "less developed country."
My grandparents each had about 14 siblings, most all of whom grew up and had quite a few, too. Look at many Utah/ Idaho families. It is not unheard of for Mormons to have 10-14 children now.
Lots of very poor families in Mexico and Latin America currently have lots of children. Now imagine that they are all church members, and that they know that all needs were supplied.
Nor did Lehi and Ishmael seem to have any problems with having lots of children. Most children from large families have many children, too. By being more isolated, most of their children would have though it normal and expected to have that many children. Ten children would not be anything extraordinary.
And let's take it a little further: if Sariah and Ishmael's wife had borne twins or multiple children, which are more likely to bear twins, then perhaps some of their children had twins, and on down.
What if Nephi's married sisters were all older than the sons? If Lehi's siblings were all two years apart; and there were two-four older daughters, then they would have been possibly eight years older than Laman, and fourteen years older than Nephi. Had they married young, as females, they could have been married when Nephi was born. It wouldn't be impossible if the oldest had had 8 children by the time Nephi got married! These children would also have been much, much older than Jacob and Joseph.
Also, remember the servants and others.
It is extremely hard for me to come to any other conclusion than this: to propose and use a population growth model that is based on modern "experts" is ludicrous.
So, let's go to the higher end of the scale, and make it somewhat extreme, yet possible: were each person in the group to have 10 children who reached maturity-- married and started bearing at the age of 16 (especially easy with matched marriages), and finished when they were 45--and each succeeding generation the same, then you have a whole lot of people in a very short time, and it especially seems that way if everyone is spread out farming and herding instead of living in high-rise apartment buildings downtown. After 3 generations of 40 years each (120 years), they (Nephites + Lamanites) could (10 children each bearing 10, etc.) total 2,500 people. Adding two more generations of 40 years each, the number could grow to 41,250 Lamanites and 21,250 Nephites. "Why that's impossible!" you might say. But, why couldn't it be like that? Why not?
**** Likewise, "many wives and concubines" need not mean 20 women per man; wouldn't a few women satisfy that definition for a very strict, righteous man like Jacob?
Also, one striking major problem with polygamy for a smaller group would have been not only the sin, but the small, limited number of sexually-reproductive women if all the men wanted them all. Who would the other growing up young men marry and establish a family with and reproduce with? Thus, polygamy was not just the sin of not delighting in the chastity of women, it also meant the lack of marriage for other men, and a greater negative effect on Nephite society.
It is also probable that some men died in those wars and contentions, leaving more women and also widows, possibly with children. So, it's easy to see that the women could outnumber the men, yet the group remain very small. Who wants to bear another man's burden? The remaining living men could easily think, why would I want to support a woman (and her children) if I weren't married to her? Especially if the group was limited to a few families, it would make sense that if a married men died in battle, his brother would marry his wife (law of Moses). This could easily lead from the limited/ special case polygamy of the law of Moses, to generalized polygamy. We see a similar situation of bearing the burden of widows with Limhi's people, another small group, though as king he commanded the men to support other widows.
With a large number, you wouldn't think as much about having many wives and concubines as you would if you were in a smaller group--the closeness between the people and the disproportion is greater, clearer, and stays with you more.
Here's the introduction to the polygamy part:
"Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites" (Jacob 1:13).
"But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:14).
"And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son" (Jacob 1:15).
Notice that Jacob does not mention any other group of people--if you're not a Lamanite, you're a Nephite. No one else, no other possibility, not even a third or neutral or distant group of peoples. And how is it possible that any other hamlet/ hamlets of previous people(s) would so easily melt into Nephite culture, when the Nephites were the very outnumbered outsiders? This would be most likely if there were a king or small group of leaders who could decide for everyone; but with members of the same race spread out in hamlets, how could that happen? Arguing that outsiders are already in the Nephite group seems to be a circumlocution argument.
If the Nephites were marrying outsiders as wives and concubines, one might expect Jacob to talk about the dangers of doing so, along with it not being right. But Jacob only mentions polygamy and how some probably excused themselves through the Bible. He doesn't mention anything about outside influences leading to this situation of polygamy, but he relates this happening to an occurrence in the Bible, which to me seems to mean that the Nephites were excusing themselves because of it, perhaps while the Lamanites, not having the Bible, wouldn't, or didn't. Jacob says that the Lamanites remember the commandment given to Lehi, but the Nephites don't. In fact, he doesn't mention anything about marrying nonbelieving wives. So it seems safer to assume that the (extra) wives, and concubines, were already in the group, and "believers". The only other scenario I can see is that (1) this part was excluded from the records or (2) the outsiders were also the covenant people of the Lord. Jacob does not talk about Solomon and his nonbelieving wives and how they led him astray, nor does he say anything about the tribes marrying other people with other beliefs and how that would affect the covenant, nor does he talk about how marrying outside the covenant affects the children. In Jacob 3:10, Jacob says "Wherefore, ye shall remember your children, how that ye have grieved their hearts because of the example that ye have set before them; and also, remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day." Jacob mentions that the fathers' examples and filthiness affect the children, but he says nothing about false beliefs, customs, etc.
Which brings up another point. When the Lord curses the Lamanites, he gives the reason for it:
"And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction" (Alma 3:8).
Notice that this curse is only on those in Lehi's and Ishmael's families:
"And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women" (Alma 3:7).
It seems that the Lord doesn't worry about them mixing with "others"; why? If the Lord were to worry about them mixing with "others", why is there no curse on "others", to distinguish the righteous from the unrighteous, the true beliefs from the false--especially if they were marrying into both sides of Lehi's family, as most believers of this opinion would believe?
Something I find interesting is that Jacob writes: "Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed A MAN to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:9). This seems strange. It wasn't Jacob, the next in line; nor seemingly Nephi's son. Written this way, I infer a man who would be a stranger to us, and not of their family, possibly even a person somewhat remote to their group. Yet then, a few verses later Jacob writes this:
"Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites."
"But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:13-14).
--------------
Gardner:
An analogous case that Sorenson fails to mention is the problem of wealth among the early Nephites. Jacob informs us:
And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully. And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they. (Jacob 2:12-13)
These verses give the appearance of a direct relationship between gold and silver and the wealth that they have obtained. This makes sense to a culture raised on the Western notions of intrinsic value in the metals, but in the context of an early Nephite culture both of these verses are nonsense unless others are in the land.
Gardner:
Our first problem with Jacob's sermon is that he is presenting what would be an impossible situation if we assume the city of Nephi is isolated in the land. He suggests that they have become wealthy because of the gold and silver that they have found, elements that he calls abundant.8 This should be impossible. First of all, in a Mesoamerican economy, gold and silver had no intrinsic value. They continued to lack intrinsic value for Mesoamerican populations up to the time of the Conquest when the Spaniards rather forcibly imposed their own values for gold and silver. Secondly, it is hard to get rich from gold and silver ore.
----------
****Why is this "nonsense"? Didn't the "early Nephite culture" come from, relate to, and remember the old world? Didn't the wealth that Lehi had at Jerusalem consist of "his gold, and his silver, and his precious things" (1 Nephi 2:4, 3:22)? Would it be so hard to believe that Nephites and Lamanites (see Alma 17:13-14), familiar with gold, silver, and precious things (including "precious ores"), would use it as a measure of wealth? Or, that a monetary system could grow from it? In fact, doesn't the Book of Mormon say that "Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah" (Alma 11:4)? The Nephites "altered" the system--"in every generation, until the reign of the judges"--sounds like every generation would include from the beginning.
What about King Noah? If that were all so, it seems that one must assume that this group of Nephites which is in Lamanite bondage, is not really cut off from other groups, as king Noah taxed his subjects' precious metals and food for the support of himself and the other leaders (see Mosiah 11:3-4). If they were not really cut off, how come "outsiders" play no part in any of the lonely Nephite situation? How do all these "outsiders" mingle so freely and wander among, and trade with, both the Lamanites and the Nephites, especially when the Lamanites like to take these things by force?
Later, we see that both the Lamanites and the Nephites have lots of gold, silver, etc., and it seems that it is because of the trading ONE WITH ANOTHER, not with "others":
"And it came to pass that the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites; and thus they did have free intercourse ONE WITH ANOTHER, to buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire."
"And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north" (Helaman 6:8-9)
And once more, there is plenty of precious metals in all the land.
Why is it hard to get rich from gold and silver ore?
It seems to me that this argument is really based on a very shaky foundation--"since I believe the Nephites and Lamanites were in Mesoamerica, and 'in a Mesoamerican economy, gold and silver had no intrinsic value', then . . ."
----------
Third, it is difficult to get rich on anything that anyone can find in abundance. 12 discloses that gold and silver (and "all manner of precious ores") are plentiful in the land. The very fact that they are plentiful is a direct dismissal of their economic value.
Value is a relative term, and nothing that is plentiful-no matter what it is-makes one wealthy if one's neighbor has an equal amount of it.
----------
****"Plentiful" does not dismiss their economic value--it just possibly changes the system a little. For example, land and crops are plentiful for all in an agrarian society, and land and flocks for all in a shepherding society; yet, there are certainly differences in wealth. That they are plentiful does not lead that anyone may obtain as much as they want with no effort, and that all will obtain alike--though were this the case, Jacob says that the reason some are richer than others is because "the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have OBTAINED MORE ABUNDANTLY THAN THAT OF YOUR BRETHREN. . ." Well, there it is--it is very abundant; maybe everyone CAN get it--but some get it more than others, and maybe only due to "the hand of providence"--"luck", or something where there is not a strong correlation between effort and reward. One might strike a vein, while another might pan a few ounces a week, etc.
Notice that Jacob gives no relationship between "obtaining precious metals = trade = greater wealth"; only "obtaining precious metals = greater wealth".
Also, if gold and silver are plentiful to everyone in the land--not just Nephites and Lamanites--why would it be of value to the Nephites and Lamanites for trade only? In other words, if the people they were trading with already had gold, silver, and precious ores, what worth would they have, according to this, unless they were trading with "others" that were way out of the land? Remember, there was "an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north" (Helaman 6:9) Interestingly enough, in the verse previous to that, Helaman 6:8, we read that "And it came to pass that the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites; and thus they did have free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire". Lamanites and Nephites, "one with another"--not with any outside group(s). And if precious metals were so plentiful, and led to great trade, why didn't Nephites and Lamanites have constant wars defending it from "outsiders"?
So, if two people have a billion dollars and can live a comfortable life, they aren't rich? I believe that you are assuming that a relative inflation is built into this system.
Even manna sent from heaven, which required no work to produce and diligence to grow, was not necessarily eaten in the same amounts by all--if you didn't gather, you didn't eat! Precious ores are a little more difficult than that.
---------
Gardner:
In the case of gold and silver, we assume that the metals are valuable because they can purchase things. If we think of an early Nephite population isolated from all other populations, what could gold or silver "buy"? In a barter world, where the necessities of food and shelter are paramount, piling up gold and silver rocks in the back of one's home doesn't lead to wealth but to time taken from more productive and important chores. You cannot trade gold for food if everyone has gold. It has no exchange value.
----------
****I guess this is the explanation for why American farmers are so poor? ;)
Everywhere, food and shelter are paramount. But if you already have them, then what?
This is saying that even a righteous people can easily distinguish between needs and wants--is this something one sees with, let's say, modern Utah LDS? Anything can buy anything, depending on people's wants and values.
Everyone has money, but I can still buy stuff with it--in other words, it still has "exchange value". Just that some have more than others.
"It has no exchange value." Hearing this from an American is very interesting, because unlike gold and silver, the paper money the USA uses now has no intrinsic value, nor even representative value--and hasn't for quite a while. Though there's plenty of it created every day from thin air, the economy has kept on for over half a century. At least precious metals are certain.
And like we don't buy expensive "wants" for ourselves, even when we don't have our needs.
A barter system is used/ can be used only for "necessities"? Hardly!
All throughout the Book of Mormon, precious metals have value and/ or are used as a system. Even when it seems to be only the Nephites (and Lamanites) versus the Gadianton robbers (Lamanites and Nephites), the Nephites still keep their gold, silver, and precious things:
"And it came to pass that they had not eaten up all their provisions; therefore they did take with them all that they had not devoured, of all their grain of every kind, and their GOLD, AND THEIR SILVER, AND ALL THEIR PRECIOUS THINGS, and they did return to their own lands and their possessions, both on the north and on the south, both on the land northward and on the land southward" (3 Nephi 6:2).
----------
Gardner:
Jacob 2:13 indicates even more clearly that others must have been present and that the Nephites had active commerce with them. A result of the "wealth" of the Nephites is that they begin to wear costly apparel. Again our modern sensibilities trick us into an assumption that this would be logical. However, if no others are present and the Nephites are isolated as a small group, how does one obtain costly apparel? In a society without stores, in which everyone must make his or her own clothing from the locally available fibers and dyes, where would "costly apparel" come from? If all members of the society have access to the same materials and dyes, they simply copy the style-they do not have anything that anyone else does not have, and they certainly do not "purchase" it to render it costly. They make it. These two verses describing the economic conditions of this early Nephite society make sense only if the Nephites are a larger population and are trading goods with other communities.
---
Gardner:
Finally, we have the manifestation of this wealth in "costly apparel."9 This is another situation that should not exist. In an isolated community with no department stores, clothing is made by the community. The same materials are available to all; the same dyes are available to all. Even stylistic changes tend to be widely copied. It is quite common for villages to have an almost uniform dress rather than a segregation created by dress. Under the assumptions that are commonly brought to the Book of Mormon text, that of a group of people alone in the land, it should be virtually impossible to have "costly apparel."
----------
****Yeah, they make it with gold and silver that they found, or somehow integrate the gold and silver with it. How does this relate to "trading goods with other communities"?
The author assumes that any two people in the same community can do the same thing; but in separate communities, no two people can do the same thing, or copy. Don't most Americans have access to the same clothes? Let's face it--most all of us have the same materials available. But, we still don't wear the same clothes. Why? Price is probably the biggest reason. Then there's appeal. Some wear costly apparel nowadays that is high-priced brand names, for example--where the price is high, but for an "unworthy" reason, many would say.
Also, it's a matter of allocation of resources--including time, interpretation of value, and values.
This whole argument of "others" based on economics seems way too overly simplistic and interpretatively limited.
-----------------
Gardner:
There is a condition, however, that explains all of Jacob's economic problems. That condition is trade. As will be noted, not just any trade, but trade in Mesoamerica at this particular point in time. As noted for the coastal region of Guatemala, there were others in the land when the Lehites arrived, and archaeology tells us that there are other populations and cities in the general land when the Nephites arrive at the location of their city, presumed to have been in the Guatemalan highlands. If we assume that the gold and silver were being worked, using metalworking skills Nephi could have taught them, then these worked goods would have exchange value with other cities, and the resulting importation of goods creates a situation where those engaged in the trade accumulate more unique prestige goods than those who do not trade outside of their own city. Thus trade provides precisely the conditions Jacob is combating.
The process of trade would have brought not only esoteric goods, but also a mechanism for the very social differentiation that Jacob excoriates. This is the cultural problem behind the "costly apparel" that will become one of the hallmark themes of the competing religious ideas throughout the rest of the Book of Mormon. In Mesoamerica, the time period of the early Nephites saw developing social stratification, and an increasing pressure towards kingship in the cities of the Maya lands. This social differentiation was supported by the accumulation of esoteric goods, often displayed on the clothing of the elite. As Schele and Mathews put it, "People throughout Mesoamerica wore these currencies as jewelry and clothing to display the wealth and enterprise of their families."10 Bringing in clothing and adornments from other locations is a way to create a differentiation in dress. When the clothing itself becomes the display mode for elite consumption goods, then the costly apparel in and of itself becomes the marker of the increasing economic and social distance between developing classes. It is important to remember that Jacob's issue is never wealth, but rather the social stratification that was based on wealth. The costly apparel was a unique Mesoamerican mode of creating and displaying that social separation. The pressures for creating social stratification that we see beginning in the city of Nephi mirror the greater trend in the entire Mesoamerican cultural area at just this point in time.
The presence of trade relations with other Mesoamerican communities therefore provides a context in which we may understand Jacob's sermon denouncing social stratification through wealth, particularly wealth manifest through costly apparel.
----------------
****Hold on, I'm quite confused--I thought we just read, from Gardner, that: "First of all, in a Mesoamerican economy, gold and silver had no intrinsic value. They continued to lack intrinsic value for Mesoamerican populations up to the time of the Conquest when the Spaniards rather forcibly imposed their own values for gold and silver." So, do they have value in mesoamerica or not? Which one is it: "[no value in mesoamerica]", or "[high value right next door, and all over mesoamerica]"? If precious ores are all over the land, how come it's not in the mountains (maybe a few miles away?), but down in the valleys and by the seashore? If you want to go the trade route, a very outside "other", such as by shipping or long journey trade, seems much more plausible.
All throughout the Book of Mormon, precious metals are used as a system. Here's the strongest point for trade: even when it seems to be only the Nephites (and Lamanites) versus the Gadianton robbers, the Nephites still keep their gold, silver, and precious things: "And it came to pass that they had not eaten up all their provisions; therefore they did take with them all that they had not devoured, of all their grain of every kind, and their GOLD, AND THEIR SILVER, AND ALL THEIR PRECIOUS THINGS, and they did return to their own lands and their possessions, both on the north and on the south, both on the land northward and on the land southward" (3 Nephi 6:2).
Why would the Gadianton robbers want that stuff, if they couldn't eat it? If the robbers were all brothers and shared together, what good would it be to have? Unless, they could trade it with other groups of peoples. But, who would be willing to trade with Gadianton robbers?
Were the Lamanites involved in this war? It doesn't say that they were. But, wouldn't the Gadianton robbers have attacked them, the easy prey, first, and taken their things? When food was scarce, wouldn't the Gadianton robbers have killed the Lamanites to avoid fighting with them over eating wild animals? The only other reason I can think of is that the Nephites believed that they would triumph and society would continue pretty much as they knew it.
On the other hand:
How could any group possibly survive outside of the Nephites and Gadianton Robbers, especially at the time in the book of 3 Nephi, especially when the Gadianton Robbers inhabited and infested the mountains (which is usually the last place of refuge)?
----------------
Gardner:
. . . we again must note that Jacob's denunciation of polygyny is problematic for multiple reasons, none of which have to do with the obvious difference between Jacob's denunciation and historical LDS polygamy.
First, Jacob consistently equates having more than one wife with whoredoms and unchastity. This is as impossible as valuable gold that is easily found. Note that Jacob clearly speaks of wives, not of harlots. All societies that accept multiple wives have legal regulations that legitimize the union. A plural wife is a wife, and relations with a wife do not fall under the rubric of whoredoms in any society. Thus, Jacob is somehow in the position of having a type of union that someone recognizes as a wife, but which he (and the Lord) do not.
----------------
****I agree that riches, multiple wives, and trade with others COULD be related--it's a possibility, but definitely not a necessity.
It's not hard to imagine that some men, reading about David and Solomon, married more than one woman and called them both, or at least understood them both to be wives, by being committed to them and supporting them. It doesn't have to mean that society accepted it or not, or whether it was legal or not. It's not the easiest to prove that a woman is married to a man, or even that they are committing whoredoms. To these men, and to a few others, the woman is a wife. To their first wife, and to society in general, the woman is much less. Look at Taiwan. Some men, especially the older wealthy ones, have illegal second wives. Some even have three. It is usually not a huge secret, though they usually don't go around telling everyone (especially their first wife!). They can't excuse it on scripture, either, unlike the Nephites. And no, they didn't learn it from or because of trade--it's their own history, just like with the Nephites.
----------------
Gardner:
. . .Jacob also describes the fate of the wives and children in ways that make no sense. He speaks of the daughters of Jerusalem being led away captive11 and their children being brought into destruction.12 It is hard to see how the very fact of multiple wives can be equated to captivity, and cause the destruction of their children. Many factors in a marriage might be considered to yield such an end, but not the very fact of a marriage.
Once again, the cultural context of Mesoamerica gives us a way of seeing this text and removing those difficulties. The same context of trade provides the answer. The development of social segregation in Mesoamerica has been the subject of multiple theories and studies, but one study uses the archaeological information to support the hypothesis that the development of "institutionalized social inequality and political privilege"13 was due to the internal social pressures of personal advancement. In terms of this theory, such seekers of advantage are termed "aggrandizers."
"Aggrandizers simply strive to become more influential. It is the successful deployment of resources and labor that ultimately ensure the social and political longevity of an aggrandizer."14 Building renown commences in the nuclear unit of production. An aggrandizer first accumulates deployable resources by the sweat of his brow, and through the efforts of his wife (wives) and children. The more wives and children the better."15
The linkage between economics and multiple wives is absolutely parallel between Mesoamerica and the situation we see in the city of Nephi. The communities with which trade would have been established would certainly have had men with multiple wives among the most influential, and those would also be the ones with the most excess production to trade. Along with the trade goods, the mechanisms of achieving the excess production for trade would be carried back to the Nephites. The Nephite men who were taking wives were precisely the same as those who were seeking to exalt themselves over their neighbors, using the trade-acquired "costly apparel." These particular Nephites fit the description of the aggrandizers, and it would not be surprising that they would attempt to adopt the accumulation methods of those they saw as successful role models for trade. Their adoption of plural wives would be modeled after foreign law, not Nephite law, and therefore subject to Jacob's denunciation as a non-sanctioned union, even though it could be seen as a legitimate wife in the greater cultural context of the region.
--------------
****Nowhere do I see in the Book of Mormon this "linkage between economics and multiple wives" that "is absolutely parallel between Mesoamerica and the situation we see in the city of Nephi". It might be absolutely parallel in mesoamerica, but the Book of Mormon fails to mention any relationship. Nor do I see in the Book of Mormon where it says that "the Nephite men who were taking wives were precisely the same as those who were seeking to exalt themselves over their neighbors, using the trade-acquired 'costly apparel'". In fact, of all the things one might expect to hear relating these two sermons and interwoven among them, would be Jacob saying so. He doesn't. He shows no relationship, nor hints to one, at all.
--------------
Gardner:
The last piece of information that finishes elucidating the problematic aspects of Jacob's denunciation of polygyny is the probable exchange of wives with another community. The practice of the social exchange of wives to establish close bonds is well understood in human history. We may easily imagine that a daughter who was brought out of Jerusalem, as noted in Jacob 2:32-33, who was sent to another village might consider her marriage as a form of captivity because of the separation from her known community and background. The children are under threat of destruction because of the foreign ideas being brought into the community. Certainly children born of Nephite women in other communities would have little opportunity to grow up with the Nephite god, and therefore be subject to spiritual destruction. If the Book of Mormon events of the early city of Nephi took place in highland Guatemala as Sorenson's correlation suggests, this scenario is more probable than any other, and fits the text of the Book of Mormon better than any other explanation.
--------------
****Captivity and destruction could also result from the promise made to Lehi: obeying the commandments would bring prosperity, but disobeying them would bring destruction. This is what we read in Jacob 3:5:
". . .the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father--that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them." It seems that Lehi received a commandment that they were to have only one wife; the will of God had been precisely given, and the matter was clear to all; yet, the Nephites broke this commandment--wouldn't captivity and destruction be the result, according to the promise of the Lord?
What Gardner fails to mention, is that David and Solomon both had wives that were from "conquered" or foreign peoples, and that displacing a believing wife with a nonbelieving wife, who then teaches the Nephite children to not believe, also fits this description.
---------------
The account of Sherem's encounter with Jacob reiterates the question. "Some [ten more?] years had passed away," and Jacob was now verging on "old" (cf. Jacob 7:1, 20-26). At that time "there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem" (Jacob 7:1). Upon first meeting Jacob, he said, "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard . . . that thou goest about much, preaching" (Jacob 7:6). Now, the population of adult males descended from the original group could not have exceeded fifty at that time. This would have been only enough to populate one modest-sized village. Thus Sherem's is a strange statement. Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved. Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came . . . among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase.
Gardner:
With the clear enmity between lineal Nephites and Lamanites at this early period, it is unlikely that Sherem was a Lamanite born after the separation of the two colonies, yet that would be the only other possibility if we do not factor "others" into the equation.
Ash:
Since Jacob was one of the original Lehites in the New World, the maximum adult population among the Lehites couldn’t have been more than a dozen people. Yet Sherem had come from another settlement and had never met Jacob, the chief Nephite priest.
-------------
****"And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem."
Think about this: were Sherem a stranger who literally/ physically came among them from the outside/ another place, how then would he have been able to have "a perfect knowledge of the language of the people" (Jacob 7:4)? Then, why would Jacob have asked him if he had read the scriptures, and how could Sherem have told Jacob that he had read the scriptures and understood them? (Jacob 7:10: "And I said unto him: Believest thou the scriptures? And he said, Yea.") If he were from the outside, where did Sherem get the scriptures, or how did he read them? And why would Jacob believe his answer about having read them? Perhaps Jacob wrote this part to stress that he wasn't a stranger to the Nephites.
This "came. . .among" in Jacob 7:1 could mean that he "rose up". (See "In the Name of Love" (by U2): "One man come in the name of love. . ." Well, Martin Luther King didn't "come" as in "come/ go". He "rose up" might be a better way to say it.) In Helaman 7:25, Nephi says: "Yea, wo be unto you because of that great abomination which has COME AMONG you; and ye have united yourselves unto it, yea, to that secret band which was established by Gadianton!" Well, it wasn't a strange group of outsiders that "brought" the secret band of Gadianton to the Nephites. This use is also supported by 2 Nephi 10:3, where Jacob writes: "Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name--should COME AMONG the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him--for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God." Once again, Jesus didn't "come among" the Jews from the outside, unless you want to stretch it and count coming back from Egypt; but he had originally been from them. Or, unless you want to count coming down from heaven; but in that case, everyone would be in the same sense. Also, in Helaman 6:2, it says: "For behold, there were many of the Nephites who had become hardened and impenitent and grossly wicked, insomuch that they did reject the word of God and all the preaching and prophesying which did COME AMONG them." Unless all the prophets were from outside groups, I don't believe the strict interpretation of "come among" holds. Samuel the Lamanite, in Helaman 13:26, , ". . .if a prophet COME AMONG you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and CAST HIM OUT and seek all manner of ways to destroy him. . ." Then, in Helaman 13:27, he says, ". . .if a man shall COME AMONG YOU and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth--and if a man shall COME AMONG you and say this, ye will RECEIVE HIM. . ." Though Samuel came among them from the lands of the Lamanites, I doubt he meant "come among", "cast him out", and "receive him" in literal, straightforward, one-way interpretations only--what, could no prophets and false prophets exist among the Nephites, but only come from outside the Nephites? Hardly so. Also, in Mosiah 11:20, we read: "And it came to pass that there was a man AMONG them whose name was Abinadi; and he WENT FORTH AMONG them, and began to prophesy, saying: Behold, thus saith the Lord, and thus hath he commanded me, saying, GO FORTH, and say unto this people, thus saith the Lord--Wo be unto this people, for I have seen their abominations, and their wickedness, and their whoredoms; and except they repent I will visit them in mine anger"; and then, in Mosiah 12:1: "And it came to pass that after the space of two years that Abinadi CAME AMONG them in disguise, that they knew him not, and began to prophesy among them, saying: Thus has the Lord commanded me, saying--Abinadi, GO and prophesy unto this my people, for they have hardened their hearts against my words; they have repented not of their evil doings; therefore, I will visit them in my anger, yea, in my fierce anger will I visit them in their iniquities and abominations." Well, there was only one people for Abinadi at this time, and he was there among them already. If Abinadi were already there among them, how could he "go"? On the other hand, some uses of "come among" are in the way you mention, such as in Alma 7:8 and Alma 20:13.
Or, Sherem, being a wise man, especially having seen evidence, knew that the Lamanites could only overcome the Nephites through the Nephites' wickedness, and therefore had come over peacefully from the Lamanites to corrupt the Nephites, which would allow the Lamanites to overcome them.
Or, perhaps desiring to rise up and be the leader of the Nephites, without the Lamanites, he left the Lamanites to corrupt the Nephites, then wanted to politically overcome them later.
Or, more probably, Sherem could have been from a group that split away from the Nephites earlier. Looking at the record, maybe even 50 years could have passed away since then. Somewhere in that time it would not have been improbable for a small group, especially if it were just a couple or family or two, to splinter away. There's plenty of that happening in the Book of Mormon all the time. To those who say it would have been mentioned, remember the Amalekites--major players later on, yet not even their splintering off is mentioned.
Sherem, a liar (see Jacob 7:14, 19), was probably practicing his preaching, building his base of followers, and perfecting his doctrine before daring to argue with Jacob. Naturally, he would say that he had tried to speak with him, but just hadn't been able to. Sound familiar?--"I tried to call you, but I couldn't reach you"--yeah, right!
If this is not the correct interpretation, perhaps it is this: Jacob himself writes that ". . .[Sherem] labored diligently that he might lead away the hearts of the people, insomuch that he did lead away many hearts; and he knowing that I, Jacob, had faith in Christ who should come, he sought much opportunity that he might come unto me" (Jacob 7:3). This sounds much more like Jacob was trying to avoid the head-to-head confrontation, not that there were so many people they never ran into each other, and so on. Also, none of this states or even implies that Jacob hadn't known Sherem before this time, or that Sherem had been around preaching for years, contrary to what is inferred in the article: "How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement?" He might have known him and seen him often before Sherem started his preaching.
". . .that thou goest about much, preaching": being a priest and a teacher over the people of Nephi, especially if with only his brother Joseph to help, he would have had the responsibility of "home teaching", etc.; in addition, he had to work for a living-- probably farming and tending flocks--somewhat time-consuming, as those who have done it can testify. Understanding this context, the statement then makes more sense.
Not only that, it's also a nice form of flattery and buttering up.
Also, we read in Jacob 7:16, 17 that "And it came to pass that [Sherem] said unto the people: Gather together on the morrow, for I shall die; wherefore, I desire to speak unto THE PEOPLE before I shall die. And it came to pass that on the morrow the MULTITUDE WERE GATHERED together. . ."
It seems obvious that he had preached his doctrine to all the people; to everyone--a hard thing to do if numerous Nephites and many "other" peoples were spread out among many cities ("And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved."); he had not asked to speak to "my believers", or "this village", but "the people".
Also, IF "on the morrow" means the next day, the people could be gathered without prior notice or preparation for the next day. I assume that unlike King Benjamin, there wasn't a special holiday/s where the people were probably already preparing to go to the temple, or unlike Jesus, when it was. . .well, Jesus. (3 Nephi 19:2-4: here "on the morrow" is used to signify "tomorrow/ the next day".)
In Alma 47:35, we read:
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah sought the favor of the queen, and took her unto him to wife; and thus by his fraud, and by the assistance of his cunning servants, he obtained the kingdom; yea, he was acknowledged king throughout all the land, among all the people of the Lamanites, who were composed of the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites, and all the dissenters of the Nephites, from the reign of Nephi down to the present time."
"All the dissenters of the Nephites, from the reign of Nephi down to the present time"--this phrase helps clear up a few things. First, it seems that the dissenters always fled to the Lamanites. Why not another group, nation, or "others"? Second, "from the reign of Nephi"--clearly, that's long before Jacob (Sherem), and much earlier than the first mention of the Amalekites, the first large group of dissenters that we read about.
Then, Jacob writes: ". . .the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a LONESOME and a solemn people. . . (Jacob 7:26). "Lonesome" doesn't sound like they were mingling and mixing with lots of other peoples, especially those who believed in the same religion.
-------------
Sorenson:
The reports of intergroup fighting in these early generations also seem to refer to larger forces than growth by births alone would have allowed. At the twenty-five-year mark of their history, Nephi already reported that they had had "wars" with the Lamanites (see 2 Nephi 5:34), yet the male descendants of the original Nephites could not reasonably have numbered more than a score by the time these "wars" are mentioned. Later, in Jacob's old age, the "wars" mentioned in Jacob 7:26 would have been fought with a maximum of fifty on his side and not dramatically more for the attackers. Either the expression "war" was being used loosely at this point in the account or else the population springing from the original Lehites had already been augmented by "others," it appears to me.
------------
****See response to small numbers of fighting men for "war" at the beginning of page 4.
Later (Jacob 7:24, 25), Jacob writes: "And it came to pass that many means were devised to reclaim and restore the LAMANITES. . .and they had an eternal hatred against US, THEIR BRETHREN. And they sought by the power of their arms to DESTROY US CONTINUALLY (this sounds like war). Wherefore, the people of Nephi. . .became as yet, conquerors of THEIR ENEMIES ("the Lamanites", in the plural--not the Lamanites AND (lots of) others).
Also, in Words Of Mormon 1:13: "And it came to pass also that the ARMIES OF THE LAMANITES came down out of the land of Nephi, to battle against his people. But behold, king Benjamin gathered together his armies, and he did stand against them. . .
Words Of Mormon 1:14: And in the strength of the Lord they did contend against their ENEMIES, UNTIL THEY HAD SLAIN MANY THOUSANDS OF THE LAMANITES. And it came to pass that they did contend against the Lamanites until they had driven them out of all the lands of their inheritance."
Thus, here it seems that only Lamanites are their enemies.
Then, in Jacob 7:26: . . .and HATED OF OUR BRETHREN, WHICH CAUSED WARS and contentions. . .
In Helaman 12:2, it says that the Lord helps the Nephites by making sure their "enemies don't declare war on them"; at this time, it is the Lamanites and Gadianton robbers (Helaman 11:1, 2) that make the plural.
The end of the great Jaredite war goes through the process of dwindling numbers, though most of the Lamanite/ Nephite wars seem to have hardly been to the death of everyone.
Also, it seems probable that the weapons, especially on the attacking Lamanite side, would not have been as advanced or of as high quality. The Nephites would hardly want to actively and pursuingly kill the Lamanites, as the verses above and elsewhere show.
--------------
Cultural Adaptation and "Others" The point about "war" opens up the larger issue of cultural learning and adaptation in the new land by both Nephites and Lamanites. A pair of telling passages in the book of Mosiah lets us know that some "native" New World people or other had to have provided at least one direct, crucial cultural input to the immigrants. Not long after 200 B.C., Zeniffite King Limhi reminded his people in the land of Nephi that "we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind" (Mosiah 7:22). Note that Limhi mentions "corn" first in the list of tribute crops. In Mosiah 9:14 it is the only crop mentioned at all: "Lamanites . . . began to . . . take off . . . the corn of their fields." Now, "corn" is clearly maize, the native American plant that was the mainstay of the diet of many native American peoples for thousands of years. There is no possibility that Lehi's party brought this key American crop with them or that they discovered it wild upon their arrival. Maize is so totally domesticated a plant that it will not reproduce without human care. In other words, the Zeniffites or any other of Lehi's descendants could only be growing corn/maize because people already familiar with the complex of techniques for its successful cultivation had passed on the knowledge, and the seed, to the newcomers. Notice too that these passages in Mosiah indicate that corn had become the grain of preference among the Lamanites, and perhaps among the Zeniffites. That is, they had apparently integrated it into their system of taste preferences and nutrition as a primary food, for which cooks and diners in turn would have had familiar recipes, utensils, and so on.
-------------
**** "Now, "corn" is clearly maize, the native American plant that was the mainstay of the diet of many native American peoples for thousands of years. . ." I'm sorry, but why is this corn "clearly" maize? How was that clear connection made? I imagine Joseph Smith could have been very clear by saying "maize", but he said "corn" instead. Result? It's not "clearly" maize.
Interesting that some apologists, in explaining about corn and animals, for example, mention that these were probably names given to other things--yet here, corn is "clearly" maize. Looking at Mosiah 7:22 again--"we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and EVEN ALL OUR GRAIN OF EVERY KIND"--I wonder why corn seems to be listed as a grain, when it is not--it sounds as if it is listed as the first grain. In South America, there are many other kinds of grain that were most likely unknown to Joseph Smith. This "corn" could have been any of them, or even Indian corn. Following is a list of some other grains, or what might be considered grains, especially by someone who is not a grain scientist (such as me)--so this is not a scientific list, and might be missing a lot, or might even be redundant: amaranth, barley, buckwheat, corn (blue/ Hopi, popping), kamut, millet, oats, quinoa, rice (basmati, brown, wild, etc.), rye, sorghum, spelt, wheat (durum, red, white). There are also beans/ legumes/ lentils/ others, which might be included in some way: puy lentils, borlotti beans, cannellini beans, foulde medammes, gunga peas, broad beans, pinto beans, soy beans, pearl barley, black-eye beans, mung beans, aduki beans, flageolet beans, wheatgrass, buckwheat, green lentils, garbanzo beans, grean peas, yellow peas, sweet potato, black bean, etc. Perhaps a few of these were grown there, or even their hybrids, which might have even replaced them (so as there really is no word for them to translate).
If it were really maize, here we have another problem of the chicken and the egg: where did these "people already familiar. . ." with corn, get it from? Do you mean to say that people remained in the Americas caring for corn from Adam on down, or from the flood on down, or what? Is maize absolutely only "indigenous" to the Americas? How did maize start, and be continually planted since the beginning of the world, if it "is so totally domesticated. . . it will not reproduce without human care"? Or did someone domesticate it? Do all corns require the same human care? Is it possible that maize was somewhere else, too, but that we still don't know about it? Science is full of anomolies. Just some curious questions in this paragraph, more than anything.
-------------
This situation reminds us of how crucial the natives of Massachusetts were in helping the Puritan settlers in the 1600s survive in the unfamiliar environment they found upon landing. The traditional American Thanksgiving cuisine of turkey, pumpkin, and corn dishes--all native to the New World--is an unconscious tribute to the gift of survival conferred by the Amerindians by sharing those local foods with the confused and hungry Europeans. Did an equivalent cultural exchange and unacknowledged thanksgiving process take place for Lehi's descendants in the Book of Mormon land of first inheritance or land of Nephi? Since it is certain that "others" passed on knowledge about and a taste for corn to the Nephites and Lamanites, it becomes likely that other cultural features also came from them.
--------------
****". . .turkey, pumpkin, and corn dishes--all native to the New World. . ." Side note--that would be wild turkey and Indian corn. And while pumpkin was available, it has never been found mentioned as having been eaten by them at this meal. Also, the main reason for the "confused and hungry and (other negative adjectives) Europeans" had to do more with setting up around Christmas (after over a while of being there) in New England, poor shelter, a harsh winter and lack of supplies, constant vigilance against and fear of Indian attack, and sickness--not lack of food from their summer harvest. In fact, their very first harvest there was very bountiful.
--------------
The keeping of "flocks," for example (Mosiah 9:14; cf. Enos 1:21), was not a pattern which Lehi's folks are said to have brought with them; no animals are mentioned in Nephi's Old World record (it is purely speculation that they utilized camels or any other animals in their trek from Jerusalem to Bountiful). Even if they started out with animals, these would not have survived the party's famine-plagued journey through western Arabia (note, for example, 1 Nephi 16:18-32). Moreover, no hint is given that any were taken aboard Nephi's boat (in specific contrast to the Jaredite case--see Ether 6:4). So how would they have obtained native American fowls or other animals to keep in "flocks," or, more importantly, how would they have discovered techniques for successfully caring for them?
-------------
****Like many things in the Book of Mormon, 'not said =/= not.' On the other hand, let's take a look at what Nephi actually says about seeds and flocks (which seem to be missing from the original article):
"1 Nephi 18:23: And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land.
1 Nephi 18:24: And it came to pass that we did BEGIN TO TILL THE EARTH, and we began to PLANT SEEDS; yea, WE DID PUT ALL OUR SEEDS INTO THE EARTH, WHICH WE HAD BROUGHT FROM THE LAND OF JERUSALEM. And it came to pass that they did GROW EXCEEDINGLY; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.
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 ASS 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. . .
2 Nephi 5:11: AND THE LORD WAS WITH US; and we did prosper exceedingly; for WE DID SOW SEED, AND WE DID REAP AGAIN IN ABUNDANCE. And we began to RAISE FLOCKS, AND HERDS, AND ANIMALS OF EVERY KIND.
Enos 1:21: And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did TILL THE LAND, AND RAISE ALL MANNER OF GRAIN, AND OF FRUIT, AND FLOCKS OF HERDS, AND FLOCKS OF ALL MANNER OF CATTLE OF EVERY KIND, AND GOATS, AND WILD GOATS, AND ALSO MANY HORSES.
Now, we assume that Lehi was neither a farmer, nor a herder. However, the Lehites had brought seeds with them, and planted them immediately, and knew how to care for and harvest them. Did they bring flocks with them, or animals? Could have, but that is not necessary. Why? Because he says that they found all kinds of animals, including "wild animals, which were for the use of men." In other words, right right after the Lehites landed, they discovered, and Nephi knew about, the uses of animals by man. It is not until 2 Nephi 5, however, that "we BEGAN to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind." Later, in Enos, it says that they were raising them. No animals are mentioned in Enos that Nephi did not mention before in 1 Nephi 18.
Yes, it is possible that animals could have made it through the desert. And if not, wouldn't it be possible to find some or even get some in that port city nearby?
Also, "flocks" seems to mean "herds" (see Enos 1:21: "And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did. . .raise. . .flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses." ).
------------
Discovery or invention of a major cultural feature like the domestication of animals is rare enough in human history that it is highly unlikely that these newcomers could simply have pulled themselves up culturally "by their bootstraps" in this way in a generation or two.
--------------
****This is a surprising statement.
Unfortunately, your only other assumed possibility is that someone had to show them how to do it, right? Look at the American wild horse. Wild one day, domesticated the next. And, it seems very much that it is being assumed that domestication means complete domestication--chickens that don't eat worms or bugs; goats that have to be rounded up every night, have their hooves trimmed, be completely taken care of, eat alfalfa or commercial feed, etc. This is far from the case for many types of animals--potbellied pigs, Soay sheep, etc. need very little work and outside help to prosper.
Speculation here--especially if the animals had lived on their own for a while, it would have insured a hardy stock to domesticate, which might have actually made it easier for them to survive and prosper.
-------------
We will see below that significant, specific cultural features of obvious Jaredite origin appeared later among the Nephites without any explanation of how their transmission was accomplished down through time. It is a safe presumption, however, that some groups existing at the time when the Jaredite armies referred to in Ether 15 were destroyed simply refused to participate in the suicidal madness of Coriantumr and Shiz. They would have ensured their own survival by staying home and minding their meek business in this or that corner of the land.
Such minor peoples might hardly even have noted the distant slaughter of the Jaredite dynasts, so absorbed would they have been in their local affairs. The likelihood is that more than a few such groups continued past the time of the "final destruction" of the Jaredite armies at the hill Ramah, and some could well have been living in the land southward as Nephi and Laman built up their small colonies.
---------------------
****How safe is that presumption? Let's see what the Book of Mormon says about this:
Ether 11:12: "And it came to pass that in the days of Ethem there came many prophets, and prophesied again UNTO THE PEOPLE; yea, they did prophesy that the Lord would UTTERLY DESTROY THEM FROM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH except they repented of their iniquities."
Ether 11:20: And in the days of Coriantor there also came many prophets, and . . .cried repentance UNTO THE PEOPLE, and except they should repent the Lord God would execute judgment against them to their UTTER destruction. . ."
Ether 13:20: "And in the second year the word of the Lord came to Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people--
Ether 13:21: Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; AND EVERY SOUL SHOULD BE DESTROYED SAVE IT WERE CORIANTUMR."
Ether 15:12: "And it came to pass that they did gather together ALL THE PEOPLE upon ALL THE FACE OF THE LAND, WHO HAD NOT BEEN SLAIN, SAVE it was ETHER."
Ether 15:14: "Wherefore, they were FOR THE SPACE OF FOUR YEARS GATHERING TOGETHER THE PEOPLE, THAT THEY MIGHT GET ALL WHO WERE UPON THE FACE OF THE LAND, and that they might receive all the strength which it was possible that they could receive.
Ether 15:15: And it came to pass that when they were ALL gathered together, EVERY ONE to the army which he would, WITH THEIR WIVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. . ."
Ether 15:33: "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 what were those words? That the Jaredites had all been destroyed.
Those verses should make it very clear that Jaredites did not remain. This does not mean politically. In other words, it seems that according to the prophets, NOT ONE SINGLE Jaredite, other than Coriantumr and Ether, survived the final conflict. In fact, the last words that Ether wrote tell are: "Whether the Lord will that I be translated, or that I suffer the will of the Lord in the flesh, it mattereth not, if it so be that I am saved in the kingdom of God. Amen." (Ether 15:34) Now, if there were still people in the land, survivors, or remnants hiding because they were peaceful, etc., why didn't Ether continue his work of preaching repentance? If he did, we don't know of any of it.
But is this the correct interpretation of "utter"? Let's see about some other places in the Book of Mormon where it's used:
It is prophesied to the people of Ammonihah:
Alma 9:12: ". . .But behold, this is not all--he has commanded you to repent, or he will UTTERLY destroy you from off the face of the earth. . .
Alma 9:18: . . .if ye persist in your wickedness that your days shall not be prolonged in the land, for the Lamanites shall be sent upon you; and if ye repent not they shall come in a time when you know not, and ye shall be visited with UTTER destruction. . .
Alma 10:18: . . .pull down the wrath of God upon your heads, even to the UTTER destruction of this people.
Alma 10:22: . . .ye would even now be visited with UTTER destruction. . ."
Now, we know that the unrepentant people of Ammonihah were UTTERLY destroyed--every single one of them:
Alma 16:2: ". . .the armies of the Lamanites had come in upon the wilderness side, into the borders of the land, even into the city of Ammonihah, and began to slay the people and destroy the city.
Alma 16:3: . . .[the Lamanites] HAD DESTROYED THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE CITY OF AMMONIHAH, and also some around the borders of Noah, and taken others captive into the wilderness.
Alma 16:9: And thus ended the eleventh year of the judges, the Lamanites having been driven out of the land, and the PEOPLE OF AMMONIHAH WERE DESTROYED; yea, EVERY LIVING SOUL OF THE AMMONIHAHITES WAS DESTROYED, and also their great city, which they said God could not destroy, because of its greatness."
We see that the same interpretation holds--no survivors, no escapees, no hidden people on the fringe.
What about the Nephite's utter destruction? Is it the same?
Alma 45:10: ". . . this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall dwindle in unbelief.
Alma 45:11: . . .then shall they see wars [, etc.] even until the people of Nephi shall become EXTINCT--
Alma 45:14: But WHOSOEVER REMAINETH, AND IS NOT DESTROYED IN THAT GREAT AND DREADFUL DAY, SHALL BE NUMBERED AMONG THE LAMANITES, AND SHALL BECOME LIKE UNTO THEM, ALL, SAVE IT BE A FEW WHO SHALL BE CALLED THE DISCIPLES OF THE LORD; AND THEM SHALL THE LAMANITES PURSUE EVEN UNTIL THEY SHALL BECOME EXTINCT. . ."
Helaman 13:10: Yea, I will visit them in my fierce anger, and there shall be those of the fourth generation who shall live, of your enemies, to behold your UTTER destruction; . . . and those of the fourth generation shall visit your destruction.
Helaman 15:17: . . .saith the Lord, concerning the people of the Nephites: . . .I will UTTERLY destroy them. . .
Moroni 9:22: But behold, my son, I recommend thee unto God, and I trust in Christ that thou wilt be saved; and I pray unto God that he will spare thy life, to witness the return of his people unto him, or their UTTER DESTRUCTION; for I know that they MUST PERISH. . ..
Moroni 9:24: And if it so be that they PERISH, WE KNOW THAT MANY OF OUR BRETHREN HAVE DESERTED OVER UNTO THE LAMANITES, AND MANY MORE WILL ALSO DESERT OVER UNTO THEM. . ."
Yes, the Nephites were utterly destroyed, by definition as the faithful seed of Nephi. Here, the use of Nephite is different. One side of the conflict survived, and Nephites became Lamanites, and survived (though probably had little affect upon Lamanite society). With the Jaredites, however, both sides were destroyed, so there could be no deserters, from one side to the other.
What about other instances?
Helaman 6:37: "And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was UTTERLY destroyed from among the Lamanites."
In other words, NO robbers were left.
Another instance with the Gadianton robbers:
3 Nephi 2:13: And it came to pass that before this thirteenth year had passed away the Nephites were threatened with UTTER destruction because of this war, which had become exceedingly sore.
Can we summarize by saying that it meant every single Nephite? Yes, the Nephites were about to be wiped out, as per to the definition of religion, as noted above with the Lamanites.
Abinadi, prophesying of the people of King Noah, said:
Mosiah 12:8: "And it shall come to pass that except they repent I will UTTERLY destroy them from off the face of the earth; yet they shall leave a record behind them, and I will preserve them for other nations which shall possess the land; yea, even this will I do that I may discover the abominations of this people to other nations. And many things did Abinadi prophesy against this people."
Many died, then they suffered, and then they repented, so there was no fulfillment. Later, they joined with the Nephites and ceased to exist; however, I don't think this is the utter destruction the Lord was talking about for them.
What about the Lamanites?
"Yea, I say unto you, that in the latter times the promises of the Lord have been extended to our brethren, the Lamanites. . .; the Lord shall be merciful unto them" (Helaman 15:12).
"Therefore, saith the Lord: I will not UTTERLY destroy [the Lamanites]. . ." (Helaman 15:16).
Yes, the Lamanites dwindled/ lessened in number, by quite a bit; but they remained.
Also, look at what was happening with the Jaredites during the final stage of destruction:
"Now the name of the brother of Lib was called Shiz. And it came to pass that Shiz pursued after Coriantumr, and he did overthrow many cities, and he did slay both women and children, and he did burn the cities."
"And there went a fear of Shiz throughout all the land; yea, a cry went forth throughout the land--Who can stand before the army of Shiz? Behold, he sweepeth the earth before him!"
"And it came to pass that the people began to flock together in armies, throughout all the face of the land."
"And they were divided; and a part of them fled to the army of Shiz, and a part of them fled to the army of Coriantumr" (Ether 14:17-20).
. . .
"And so terrible was the destruction among the armies of Shiz that the people began to be frightened, and began to flee before the armies of Coriantumr; and they fled to the land of Corihor, and SWEPT OFF THE INHABITANTS BEFORE THEM, ALL THEM THAT WOULD NOT JOIN THEM" (Ether 14:27).
. . .
"And it came to pass that they did gather TOGETHER ALL THE PEOPLE upon ALL THE FACE OF THE LAND, who had not been slain, SAVE IT WAS ETHER."
"And it came to pass that Ether did behold all the doings of the people; and he beheld that the people who were for Coriantumr were gathered together to the army of Coriantumr; and the people who were for Shiz were gathered together to the army of Shiz."
"Wherefore, they were for the space of FOUR YEARS GATHERING TOGETHER THE PEOPLE, that they might get ALL WHO WERE UPON THE FACE OF THE LAND, and that they might receive ALL THE STRENGTH WHICH IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD RECEIVE."
"And it came to pass that when they were ALL GATHERED TOGETHER, EVERY ONE to the army which he would, with their WIVES AND THEIR CHILDREN--BOTH MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN. . ."
(Ether 15:12-15)
Everyone and every means of survival was being destroyed or gathered; and, there's no third part--it was either Shiz or Coraintumr. Unless the Lord led a small righteous part out of the land. . . but then, that would cut the Jaredites from the rest of the Book of Mormon, too, so this theory of surviving Jaredites just doesn't really seem to fit.
Does it talk anywhere else in the Book of Mormon about the Jaredite destruction?
We read that:
"And they gave an account of one CORIANTUMR, and THE SLAIN OF HIS PEOPLE. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons" (Omni 1:21).
One might say, well, "the slain of his people" could mean just that--just his people, and not all the others. Yes, I agree. But then, in the next verse, it says:
"It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And HIS FIRST PARENTS came out from the tower, at the time the Lord CONFOUNDED THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE; and the severity of the Lord fell UPON THEM according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward" (Omni 1:22).
It seems to mean that "[Coriantumr's] first parents" and theirs were all destroyed, not just Coriantumr's people.
We also know the situation with the Gadianton Robbers: join, or be completely destroyed. Anyone left outside the walls in the area would have not lasted long, no matter how neutral or small they wanted to remain or be.
No groups could remain neutral here--it was for one side or the other, or be killed. Remaining physically neutral is not a one-sided, personal decision! As many sides have said in many conflicts, "if you're not for us, you're against us--" which means you join us or we kill you. I doubt that ANY Jaredites had the choice of "simply refus[ing] to participate in the suicidal madness" and "staying home and minding their meek business in this or that corner of the land." (And goodness, if any were to have remained as proposed, they would surely have had to leave or run away, not just stay at home.)
--------------------
Lehi's final prophecy to his children foreshadowed this happening. He said, 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. 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 . . . . But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord, . . . I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them. Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, 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, and great visitations among them. (2 Nephi 1:8-12)
-----------------
**** No matter how true this might or might not be, I still fail to find a relation to "[foreshadowing] this happening."
-----------------
How much time can we suppose elapsed between the time when Lehi's descendants "dwindle[d] in unbelief" and when the Lord brought "other nations unto them"? How distant were those "other nations" at the time Lehi spoke? Latter-day Saints generally have supposed that the "other nations" were the Gentile (Christian) nations of Europe who began to reach the New World only 500 years ago. To believe so requires limited imagination.
------------------
**** Maybe a reason that many Latter-day Saints think that way is because of scriptures like Mormon 5:19: "And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they might have received in the land, for the Gentiles who shall possess the land." Or perhaps 3 Nephi 16:4, which says "And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall write shall be kept and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles, that through the fulness of the Gentiles, the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the face of the earth because of their unbelief, may be brought in, or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer."
Beware the suppositions of man.
------------------
As for the Lamanites, they dwindled in unbelief within a few years. Alma said that "the Lamanites have been cut off from his presence, from the beginning of their transgressions in the land" (Alma 9:14). How then could Lehi's prophecy about "other nations" being brought in have been kept long in abeyance after that?
----------------
**** And what about the interpretation of "dwindle in unbelief"? Who would like to show that "dwindle/dwindled in unbelief" is equivalent to "cut off"?
****That wasn't his prophecy. This was: 2 Nephi 1:9: "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 1:10: But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord--having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise--behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
2 Nephi 1:11: Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.
2 Nephi 1:12: Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them; wherefore, my sons, I would that ye would remember; yea, I would that ye would hearken unto my words."
As the Lamanites remained in power until at least the destruction of the Nephites, this couldn't include people before that time.
Also, it was the Nephites who dwindled in unbelief, as the Lamanites taught their children to not believe--resulting in a big immediate cutting off, not a dwindling.
Lehi probably knew that Laman and Lemuel would rebel and teach their children to rebel, so it wouldn't mean them at the very beginning.
--------------
Ash:
Lehi’s sermon in 2 Nephi 1:6–11 seems to preclude non-Lehite inhabitants in the “land of promise.” Traditional, and perhaps erroneous, interpretations arise when we read Lehi’s remarks that “shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord” (v. 6), and that the promised 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” (v. 8). Lehi told his children that if they remained righteous that they would prosper and “be kept from all other nations” so that they would “possess” the land “unto themselves” (v. 9).
On the surface, this seems to support the traditional interpretation that the Lehites were the primary progenitors for the American Indians. A closer look at 2 Nephi, however, is helpful. This chapter takes place some time shortly after the Lehites arrived in the New World (before Nephi and his brothers separated and before the first use of the terms Nephite and Lamanite). Lehi, who is nearing death, spoke to his posterity with counsel and warning. He said that the land of promise was offered by the Lord in covenant to Lehi, his children, and “all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord” (v. 5, emphasis added) and that none would come to the land except those brought by the hand of the Lord (and we can certainly presume that the Lord brought others into the promised land prior to, during, and after Lehi’s arrival).
------------------
****On what foundation we can "presume", I have no idea. Perhaps the author would like to elaborate and enlighten.
------------------
Such statements do not preclude the possibility that others already lived in the land of promise. The Lord promised that other nations—which up till this point had referred to Old World nations—would not know about and overrun their land.
------------------
****I'm sorry, I don't understand how the author understands that the Lord meant Old World nations. Perhaps the author would like to elaborate here, too.
------------------
(Imagine the changes that may have happened had the New World been common knowledge among European and Old World nations of Lehi’s day!)
------------------
It doesn't, but that's not what the author's trying to prove--he's trying to prove that they did exist.
------------------
The promise to keep the land secure has a caveat; as long as those brought from Jerusalem (Lehi and his family) remain righteous, they would prosper and be “kept from other nations” (v. 9). Lehi warned, however, that the time would come that they would “dwindle in unbelief” (v. 10) after which the Lord would allow “other nations” to take their possessions and cause them to be “scattered and smitten” (v. 11). While traditional LDS thought has supposed that this refers to the coming of the Spaniards (which may possibly account for a future and dual fulfillment of Lehi’s prophecy), Lehi immediately launched into an exhortation to his children telling them that as “one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodshed” (v. 12). This suggests that Lehi suspected the coming of “other nations” in the near future. The appearance of the “other nations” is directly linked to not only the wickedness of Lehi’s descendants, but also to a scattering and smiting of those who become wicked.
---------------
****Here we have a strong interpretation of scripture. Let's look at 2 Nephi 1:9 again:
"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." To me this is not just Lehi and his family. We know, for example, about the "Mulekites".
****I also see no relationship or correlation between "one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodshed" and how "this suggests that Lehi suspected the coming of 'other nations' in the near future".
---------------
Shortly thereafter (chapter 5) we find that Laman and Lemuel were so unrighteous that they wanted to kill Nephi. It is at this point that Nephi and his followers (now called “Nephites”) separate themselves from his brothers and their followers (now called “Lamanites”). According to Lehi’s prophecy, when his children became unrighteous the Lord would allow “other nations” to smite them (2 Nephi 1:11). This wouldn’t be possible unless there were already others present, or others arrived immediately after Laman and Lemuel fell back into their unrighteous habits.
----------------
****2 Nephi 1:11 reads:
"Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten." And yet, there is nothing about the Lamanites fighting wars with anyone other than the Nephites, even after the destruction of the Nephites. Moroni says that:
"And behold, the Lamanites have hunted my people, the Nephites, down from city to city and from place to place, even until they are no more; and great has been their fall; yea, great and marvelous is the destruction of my people, the Nephites" (Mormon 8:7).
"And behold, it is the hand of the Lord which hath done it. And behold also, the Lamanites are at war one with another; and the whole face of this land is one continual round of murder and bloodshed; and no one knoweth the end of the war" (Mormon 8:8).
"And now, behold, I say no more concerning them, for there are none save it be the Lamanites and robbers that do exist upon the face of the land" (Mormon 8:9). Where are the others that were to smite the Lamanites, and scatter them, and take the lands of their possessions? Nowhere there!
----------------
And in fulfillment of Lehi’s prophesy, when Nephi departed he took away the Liahona, the plates of brass, and the sword of Laban (the “possessions” important to the Lehites). In time we read how the Lamanites were “scattered and smitten.” Several centuries later, we find Alma exhorting his people to righteousness and recounting the story of Nephi’s wayward brothers as an example of the consequences of wickedness (Alma 9:13-14) . Now the Nephites were becoming wicked and were at risk for the same fate. We see the prophecies of Lehi—the promises and curses (which would include the invasion of “others”)—as having already been (or continuing to be) fulfilled.
----------------
****Sorry! This is just plain false. We don't see anything in Alma 9, or elsewhere, about how the Lamanites are scattered and smitten, as the author says.
----------------
Accordingly, it seems that a possible scenario might be thus: When the Lehites arrived they would have found sparse communities of “others” (perhaps too small to be called “nations”) in their new land. The Lehites would have continued to peacefully coexist (perhaps even intermingling) with these “others,” pursuant to their righteousness. The wickedness of the Lamanites, however, might have brought aggressive “others” (“other nations”) into the Lehite colony who could have merged with the Lamanites and joined in their quest to destroy the Nephites (who may also have joined with peaceful “others”). When the Nephites separated from the Lamanites the promises and warnings of Lehi would have been realized (and like many prophecies in the Bible, may have seen multiple fulfillment).
----------------
****Here's a more probable scenario:
"But behold, when the time cometh that THEY SHALL DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, AFTER THEY HAVE RECEIVED SO GREAT BLESSINGS FROM THE HAND OF THE LORD--having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, KNOWING THE GREAT AND MARVELOUS WORKS OF THE LORD from the creation of the world; HAVING POWER GIVEN THEM TO DO ALL THINGS BY FAITH; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise--behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them" (2 Nephi 1:10).
"Yea, he will BRING OTHER NATIONS UNTO THEM, and HE WILL GIVE UNTO THEM POWER, and he will TAKE AWAY FROM THEM THE LANDS OF THEIR POSSESSIONS, and he will CAUSE THEM TO BE SCATTERED AND SMITTEN" (2 Nephi 1:11).
First of all, we see that the Lamanites, for a long time, don't fit the description given in verse 10; only the Nephites do. So, the author's interpretation is already off.
Secondly, we see that the Lamanites DO fit the description of other nations given power to "take away" Nephite lands and cause the Nephites "to be scattered and smitten"--in fact, this is the direct promise given to Nephi about the Lamanites (1 Nephi 2:23-24): "For behold, in that day that [the Lamanites] shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also."
"And if it so be that [the Lamanites] rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed (the Nephites), to stir them up in the ways of remembrance."
This is also the case of the nation of the Gadianton robbers, when it was a nation.
Third, we see that after the group dwindles after Christ's visit, the prophecy is fulfilled for the remaining seed, such as with Moron.
Could there have been others who participated also? Once more, the Book of Mormon doesn't show any did, continually defining the Lamanites and Nephites as seemingly not having outside groups. Though perhaps after Moroni, there were.
----------------
Roper:
Is there a distinction, for example, between "nations" and other social groups? Lehi would have been familiar with nations such as Babylon and Egypt that had well-organized armies capable of waging sophisticated warfare and extending their power over large distances. Lehi's prophecy could allow for smaller societies that did not yet merit the description "nations." For instance, Sorenson's model of Book of Mormon geography places the land of Nephi in highland Guatemala near the site of Kaminaljuyú. At the time Nephi and his people separated from Laman's followers to found their own settlement in the early sixth century B.C., archaeological evidence shows that that region had only scattered, sparsely populated villages.57 Also, to "possess this land unto themselves" does not necessarily mean to be the only inhabitants but can also mean--as it often does in Book of Mormon contexts--that a group has the ability to control and exercise authority over the land and its resources (see, for example, Mosiah 19:15; 23:29; 24:2; Alma 27:22, 26).58
----------------
****I can agree with this meaning of "possess".
----------------
Roper:
Significantly, however, even Lehi's statement about "other nations" is conditional. Lehi indicates that the promised protection from threatening nations would be removed when his children dwindled in unbelief. Sorenson has observed that the Lamanites, at least, dwindled in unbelief from the beginning.
---------------
****Did the Lamanites DWINDLE? See the part about "dwindling" above.
How possible is it that this "dwindling" refers to the Lamanites, from the beginning? The following verses in the Book of Mormon show how all the prophets, from Nephi to Moroni, interpreted this "DWINDLE" to mean from about 400 years after Christ, and on:
Nephi records:
"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, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea."
"And it came to pass that I beheld multitudes gathered together to battle, one against the other; and I beheld wars, and rumors of wars, and great slaughters with the sword among my people."
"And it came to pass that I beheld many generations pass away, after the manner of wars and contentions in the land; and I beheld many cities, yea, even that I did not number them."
"And it came to pass that I saw a mist of darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were broken up; and I saw many cities that they were sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof" (1 Nephi 12:1-4)
. . .
"And while the angel spake these words, I beheld and saw that the seed of my brethren did contend against my seed, according to the word of the angel; and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld that the seed of my brethren did overpower the people of my seed."
"And it came to pass that I beheld, and saw the people of the seed of my brethren that they had overcome my seed; and they went forth in multitudes upon the face of the land."
"And I saw them gathered together in multitudes; and I saw wars and rumors of wars among them; and in wars and rumors of wars I saw many generations pass away."
"And the angel said unto me: Behold these shall DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF."
"And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations" (1 Nephi 12:19-23).
. . .
1 Nephi 13:35
"For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb."
. . .
1 Nephi 15:13
"And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed--"
. . .
1 Nephi 15:18
Wherefore, our father hath not spoken of our seed alone, but also of all the house of Israel, pointing to the covenant which should be fulfilled in the latter days; which covenant the Lord made to our father Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
. . .
2 Nephi 26:15
After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF shall not be forgotten.
. . .
2 Nephi 26:17
For thus saith the Lord God: They shall write the things which shall be done among them, and they shall be written and sealed up in a book, and those who have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF shall not have them, for they seek to destroy the things of God.
. . .
2 Nephi 26:19
And it shall come to pass, that those who have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF shall be smitten by the hand of the Gentiles.
Alma the younger says this:
"And these are the words: Behold, I perceive that this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF."
"Yea, and then shall they see wars and pestilences, yea, famines and bloodshed, even until the people of Nephi shall become extinct--"
"Yea, and this because they shall DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF and fall into the works of darkness, and lasciviousness, and all manner of iniquities; yea, I say unto you, that because they shall sin against so great light and knowledge, yea, I say unto you, that from that day, even the fourth generation shall not all pass away before this great iniquity shall come" (Alma 45:10-12).
Samuel the Lamanite says:
"Yea, even if they should DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF the Lord shall prolong their days, until the time shall come which hath been spoken of by our fathers, and also by the prophet Zenos, and many other prophets, concerning the restoration of our brethren, the Lamanites, again to the knowledge of the truth--"
"Yea, I say unto you, that in the latter times the promises of the Lord have been extended to our brethren, the Lamanites; and notwithstanding the many afflictions which they shall have, and notwithstanding they shall be driven to and fro up