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.