Thursday, January 05, 2006

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.
---------------

2 Comments:

Blogger Edward Ott said...

Let me thank you for your articles on the book of mormon i have found them very interesting.

6:51 PM  
Blogger grego said...

You're welcome!

10:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home