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

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

by

grego ©2004, 2005

Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gardner:
The best hypothesis, then, to explain Nephi's mention of "all those who would go" is that he referred to those of the hamlet or hamlets who had joined with the Lehites and who, in recognition of the greater social and technological sophistication of the newcomers, had permitted them to occupy roles of leadership over their hamlet in exchange for the new knowledge or goods they brought with them (in addition to the gathering power of religious conversion; see 2 Nephi 5:6).
Lehi's company had every reason to accept aid from, and a merger with, local populations. Lehi's group planted seeds from the Old World, but a rapid acquisition of information about survival skills particular to the New World would have been extremely important. They would have needed to know about the local food sources that were successful, the local sources of materials for clothing, the locations and types of clay for pottery, and any number of location-specific cultural items.
Gardner:
"Does the text lend any credence to the idea that "others" had come into the Lehite colony this early? Nothing points definitively to that conclusion, but on at least one occasion (in 2 Nephi 5:6) the most plausible explanation rests squarely on the presence of "others." Nephi describes the flight of his family and of those who would follow him from the machinations of Laman and Lemuel:
And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me. Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words. And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. (2 Nephi 5:5-7)
The identity of "all those who would go" with Nephi rests on those who are specifically named and the probable division of Lehi's clan. Not specified among Nephi's followers are the children of Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael, thereby leading us to assume that they remained behind. A comparison of Lehi's final counsel to the sons and daughters of Laman and Lemuel (see 2 Nephi 4:3-9) with his words to the seed of Sam (see v. 11) makes the loyalties of the children of Laman and Lemuel to their fathers appear obvious. Previous alliances of the sons of Ishmael to Laman and Lemuel (see 1 Nephi 16:37; 2 Nephi 1:28), as well as their behavior immediately following Lehi's death (see 2 Nephi 4:13), suggest that they were not inclined to follow Nephi. It is rather unlikely that any of the wives chose to split into a clan separate from their husbands, and indeed the Book of Mormon indicates the early preferences of the wives of Laman and Lemuel (see 1 Nephi 7:6; 18:9) and Nephi (see v. 19), although their individual alliances at this time of division are not specifically mentioned. When we account for the named or mentioned persons and those likely to remain behind, very little room remains for "others" from the original Lehites. In fact, using individuals mentioned in the text and their logical progeny, we can account for everyone. Regardless of how the group split up, however, if "all those who would go" were only one or two people we would expect that Nephi might make mention of them, at least by their head of household, as he does for the families of Zoram, Sam, Jacob, and Joseph.
----------
****Well, this surely isn't the necessary case. We cannot expect Nephi, Mormon, or any of the other writers to act like this. We have never seen where they act as we would expect them to act, or write as we would expect them to write. To say this, is hoping for nothing substantial. And, not everyone is mentioned. For example, what is said about Sariah, or Ishmael's wife? There is no mention of them by name as to their death or their choosing to go or remain. If they were so important, and Sariah had even been mentioned many times previously, why is she not mentioned by name at this point? So, it isn't the case.
And what, then, did the Nephites give the hamlets, in exchange for all that the hamlets gave them, such as corn, costly apparel, the location of pottery clay and metals, local food sources, etc.? Or, were these free to the Nephites? Or, did they unfairly steal this knowledge, or such? Did they buy the leadership with religion? Unlikely, right? But why would the hamlets tell them where the money was? Isn't that like the banker teaching someone how to rob a bank? And besides, if the other people that were already there had all that precious ore that was so plentiful, what good would it do the Nephites to go after it, too, unless it profited them?
----------
Gardner:
Indeed, Nephi's descriptions of "his people" begin very early to have the appearance of referring to more than the named individuals, if only in the characterizations of the activities mentioned, activities that, from Sorenson's internal perspective, would indicate a larger population.
Ash:
Who were these others who, in addition to those already mentioned, followed Nephi? It is at this point that we get the terms “people of Nephi” and “the people who were now called Lamanites” (2 Nephi 5:9, 14). It’s possible that at this point such terms took on a cultural perspective and referred to all peoples who aligned themselves with Nephi or his contentious brother.
Roper:
Significantly, at this point in the text Nephi introduces the term people of Nephi for the first time in reference to his followers (2 Nephi 5:9), a term that may be suggestive of a larger society including more than his immediate family.
------------
****"Indeed, Nephi's descriptions of "his people" begin very early to have the appearance of referring to more than the named individuals": And how does one infer that? What of his description lends to that interpretation? I am unaware of any.
What is being proposed here, is that a very small group of foreigners completely overtook the political and cultural systems from a huge group of related people, all in the space of just a few years. Possible? Yes--but highly unlikely, in my opinion. Has this happened before in history? If so, what has been the outcome?
In 2 Nephi 5:6, it says: "Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, AND ALL THOSE WHO WOULD GO WITH ME. And ALL THOSE WHO WOULD GO WITH ME WERE THOSE WHO BELIEVED IN THE WARNINGS AND THE REVELATIONS OF GOD; wherefore, they did HEARKEN UNTO MY WORDS." This seems to be people who were not of the family, but were in the group. Did Ishmael have any other daughters? If Nephi's sisters were all married to Ishmael's sons, which ones left, and how many? Servants may have later intermarried with both Nephites and Lamanites, especially after the split between the two groups. Lehi's servants, and especially anyone serving Laman and Lemuel, might have also valued this opportunity to escape from men like Laman and Lemuel, making up part of the others who respected, believed Nephi, and left with him. Did the Lehites meet up with anyone in the desert, or along the way, who joined their group?
When it talks about other groups very early in the Book of Mormon, we have the problem of language. How would a stranger understand the and believe the "warnings and the revelations of God", and be able to "HEARKEN unto [Nephi's] WORDS"? The split between the Nephites and Lamanites came very early. Unless, of course, there were people in the land who already spoke the same language. Which meant that they probably had the same, or at least similar religion, and maybe culture, too. But how probable is this? I think it is better to imagine something other than strangers as those intended in Nephi's words.
Yes, it seems likely that the "others" included some not of Nephi's immediate family.
Once again, refer to my first remark for more info. Also,
---------------
Grant:
Have you noticed in your study of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites and Nephites appear to be totally different cultures. While the Nephites continue many of the Hebrew traditions and practices, the descriptions of the Lamanites give no hint of Hebrew background. In a very short time they developed a totally new, or at least different, life style. To me, it seems probable that Laman and Lemuel, together with the sons of Ishmael, joined with a people who they found inhabiting the land upon their arrival. While Lehi's descendants adopted the life style of this established population, Laman and Lemuel, together with their descendants became leaders of this new society which Nephi and his descendants identify by the name of Nephi's eldest brother.
---------------
****Yes, they are different cultures. Remember that with Lehi, most of their lives were oriented according to the law of Moses and religion. After Lehi and the big split, the Lamanites didn't have revelation, religion, and hard work as "restrictions" anymore. When you have two groups of people with very different values, differences result quickly. The result? You very quickly have two nations. Outside cultural or religious influences are not necessary. Look at a family where some children are members of the church, and the others are not. Just after a few years of leaving home and getting married, the children's lives can be VERY different. Stick on another generation, and the differences could be so far apart you would never recognize them as being related.
---------------
Gardner:
We necessarily begin with the origin of Lehi's people in the New World. It is indisputable that Lehi and his company landed on a coast, and the coast of Guatemala is our plausible location, according to Sorenson's reconstruction. If a ship carrying Lehi's party were to have arrived on the coast of Guatemala approximately 590 years before Christ, what might they have found? Would they have been alone or were other people already there?
The archaeological survey of the Middle Formative sites for the coast of Guatemala deals with sites dated some two hundred years earlier than Lehi's landing, so we need to make some inferences. Two hundred years prior to Lehi's arrival there were seven settlements ranging from one household to twelve households.1 After this time, the coastal areas saw a peak of population density not seen until the Late Classic period, over a thousand years later. It is important to understand that the settlement areas were not necessarily larger, but simply more numerous.2
---------------
****Seven whole small settlements? spanning a whole coast, in a POSSIBLE place/ country? And of those settlements that were later discovered, could they possibly have been Lamanite settlements, instead of those of "others"?
While Guatemala might be A/ ONE "plausible location", it is far from the only possibility, and need not be accepted as one.
---------------
Sorenson:
The second question concerns the relative size of the Lamanites and other groups compared with the Nephites. An analysis has already been published of the age and gender of the personnel in Lehi's party.1 Nephite demographic history obviously begins with that information. My reading of the text puts about eleven adults and thirteen children in Nephi's group when they split with the faction of Laman and Lemuel. However, the adults included only three couples. None of the unmarried persons, including Nephi's brothers Jacob and Joseph and, probably, their sisters, would have had marriage partners available until nieces or nephews came of age, so for some interval the group's reproduction rate would have been even lower than those numbers seem to suggest. The Lamanite faction I estimate to have included four couples with the likelihood that the oldest grandchildren of Ishmael were just coming into the age of reproduction.2 Within a few years the Lamanites should have had on the order of half again as many persons as the Nephites, and that size advantage should have continued thereafter. Within a few years Nephi reports that his people "began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land" (2 Nephi 5:13).
--------------
****Nephi says, "began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land", not "began to prosper, and to multiply exceedingly in the land". Big difference. Nevertheless, let's continue.
And once again, we aren't including many others who might have been included (see previous response).
Nephi's sisters, especially the older ones already married to the sons of Ishmael, and Laman and Lemuel had had children in the desert (1 Nephi 17:20), and Nephi, Sam, and Zoram probably had a few, also (1 Nephi 18:19). Nephi's sisters could have already had a few children each before they even started out from Jerusalem, especially if they had married young, and if they were much older. Some of the desert children could have been older (by maybe four years) than Jacob. And what if some of Lehi's children were from another mother?
When you start out with a small group, it looks big fast. Comparatives and superlatives are relative, and sometimes figures of speech. Have you ever been to a large group of people seated outside, say like for a concert? Looks huge, yet, it's only a few thousand.
(Hey, how about a family reunion of my great-grandparents' posterity? Mine was so huge that it took up more than a whole huge church, and that wasn't even everyone; I hardly knew any of my relatives, and I was pretty involved with relatives. Yes, they married outside of the family; but even if they had married in the family, it would have been big.)
About 2 Nephi 5:13--note that the reason Nephi gives for this, is "And the Lord was with us; and we did prosper exceedingly"--not, "and others were with us; and we did prosper exceedingly" or "and because others helped us, we did prosper exceedingly", etc.
-------------
When about fifteen years had passed, he says that Jacob and Joseph had been made priests and teachers "over the land of my people" (2 Nephi 5:26, 28). After another ten years, they "had already had wars and contentions" with the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:34).
-------------
****"Wars" do not need large groups of people. I believe most of us don't find anything wrong with the term "war" to signify something smaller. Many gangs with small groups have "wars", such as in the term "gang wars". Look at the ways many native tribes (such as in Southeast Asia, Africa) fought/ fight battles and wars with small groups of men.
------------
Gardner:
With the addition of "others" into Nephi's party we have a larger core of people than we could possibly have with the segregation of only those who arrived with Lehi. Three events described for the early city of Nephi would appear to confirm the presence of more people than those who had come from the Old World. About thirty years after the departure from Jerusalem, Nephi describes some of the events of the establishment of the city of Nephi. First, Nephi describes having not only built dwellings, but also a temple.4 Public building projects require excess labor. Even on a modest scale, a public building takes time and resources away from daily life. The very existence of a public building suggests a larger population than the pure Old World immigrants and their natural increase.
-------------
**** All of a sudden we jump from "temple" to "public building projects", which one temple hardly justifies. This "public building" is not really what seems to be implied. It is not a government building, for example. It is a temple. It doesn't require a great many people. To us, it might be comparable to building a house--labor-intensive, takes time and work, but not that difficult for someone who sees the necessity of having one. On the other hand, there's no mention of "dwellings", but "buildings". Then, how big was Solomon's temple? In 2 Nephi 5:16, Nephi says he "did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things... but the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon". If it were a large temple, that might be a great undertaking for so few people. Notice that Nephi mentions nothing of rock or cement at this point. (In fact, nothing is mentioned of cement until Helaman 3:7.) Why couldn't it have been a wood and dirt/ clay temple? Then it wouldn't seem such a difficult task after all.
-------------
The second event that indicates the presence of a larger population is the declaration of Nephi as king.5 Small hamlets do not have kings. To name one of a dozen men "king" is an insult, not a compliment. Finally, we have the designation of Jacob and Joseph as priests and teachers "over the land of my people."6 Were we to assume only Old World peoples at this point, we have a king and two priests servicing perhaps ten households. The early Nephite political/religious structure is too top heavy for so few people. The only situation that sufficiently explains our text is the presence of non-Old World peoples at this early date.
-------------
****Kings likewise do not need lots of people under them to be called kings. I don't find any "insult" in this, in the Book of Mormon or otherwise. Do any annals of history show that to be called a king over a few people is an insult? And when does it stop being an insult and becomes a compliment? 200 men? 400 men? 700 men? Wouldn't that be convenient to know! Then we could figure out how many men there were. Remember, King Noah had many priests--at least 24, if not many more--yet his subjects were a small group, which had grown from a very small group. (The history and growth of king Zeniff's people, which could/ should serve as a subset to the Nephite growth, hasn't, unfortunately, been treated by any of these researchers, as far as I can tell.)
One ruler and two religious teachers doesn't seem too much, does it? These religious leaders were responsible for both Melchizedek ordinances and Law of Moses rites, not to mention other duties. Also, unlike the priests in Jerusalem, it is likely that Jacob and Joseph also had to work for a living.
-------------
Gardner:
The plausible presence of these "others" among the Nephites at this early point in Nephite history provides a context for a strange choice Nephi makes when recording on his personal plates. In 2 Nephi 6, Nephi records a sermon that Jacob gave. This is an odd discourse in the absence of any explanatory background. Jacob addresses a population that has recently established a city, and may still be in the throes of establishing that city and their way of life, and he preaches to them about a text from Isaiah that deals with the long distant future salvation of Israel through the Gentiles. Of all of the possible concerns for a people recently established in a new world, let alone a new city, why discourse on an event thousands of years away, and dealing with Gentiles in the Old World? To top off this mystery, we have Jacob's statement that it was Nephi, the king, who suggested this topic.7
When we look at the sermon again with our understanding of the likely presence of a goodly number of non-lineal Israelites in the early city of Nephi, that sermon becomes precisely the type of sermon that a king might request. We can easily imagine tensions between the two cultures arising, and a wise king noting the importance of "Gentiles," or non-lineal Israelites, as the salvation of Israel, or the literal descendants of Lehi. Nephi would be "likening" this future situation to that of his own community. The not-so-subtle message would be that these "others" in their midst would be essential to the salvation of the Old World lineages. Rather than a discourse on a theological future, it is a strong commentary on an important social present.
---------------
****Then why would Jacob say ". . .the words which I shall read are they which Isaiah spake concerning all the house of Israel; wherefore, they may be likened unto you, for YE ARE OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. And there are many things which have been spoken by Isaiah which may be likened unto you, because YE ARE OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (2 Nephi 6:5)--twice, he clearly says that they are of the house of Israel. Why would he give a talk to a combined audience of Israelites and "others" and say that they were all of the house of Israel? Unless they were another group of covenant people that had been led out before, right? And if that were the case, then why weren't they be given as the example when Lehi was talking about all that in 2 Nephi 1? In other words, please explain "non-lineal Israelites".
There are other reasons this topic may be considered appropriate at this time:
it is similar to a baby's blessing, with the "baby" being the Nephites; like one, it prophesies their full life; were it given at the time of a special feast/ celebration/ ceremony, it is especially fitting.
another announcement of fulfillment of the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem (after 2 Nephi 1:4), which prophecy was given before and plays an important part in Lehite matters, and which announcement was also promised before.
it's a majestic prophecy for a small group of wanderers, much like the prophecy of Joseph Smith that the church would grow to fill the earth--why did that talk take place, when those listening couldn't even fathom it?
the Nephites were already oppressed by the Lamanites and had probably already had wars with them. They were smaller in number and no doubt less inclined to violence. Ask any members living in dangerous places if those words are fitting, uplifting, and bring comfort to them, and I think you'll have a positive answer.
the scriptures speak of Christ, his omnipotence, and his saving mission.
it could be to show the Nephites that some prophecies, like Lehi's about future nations, are sometimes in the far future; however far, though, they were not forgotten.
being likened to them, that the Nephites will be sorely smitten before Christ comes, that Christ will come among them, and that afterwards they will be smitten again; but not to destruction, a lot because of the prayers of the faithful; "the Lord will be merciful unto them, that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance" (2 Nephi 6:11). Sounds just like the history of Lehi's seed.
as a reminder that Lehi's seed (and other Israelites there, and elsewhere) are not forgotten to the Lord, and are his, and the posterity will one day be gathered (see Jacob 7:41), and the promises fulfilled.
Jacob himself then gives a few reasons for this particular sermon:
"that ye might know concerning the covenants of the Lord that he has covenanted with all the house of Israel" (2 Nephi 9:1).
"[that ye might know] "[that] he has spoken unto the Jews, by the mouth of his holy prophets, even from the beginning down, from generation to generation, until the time comes that they shall be restored to the true church and fold of God; when they shall be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise" (2 Nephi 9:2).
"that ye may rejoice, and lift up your heads forever, because of the blessings which the Lord God shall bestow upon your children" (2 Nephi 9:3).
to answer many of the listeners' questions: "For I know that ye have searched much, many of you, to know of things to come; wherefore I know that ye know that our flesh must waste away and die; nevertheless, in our bodies we shall see God" (2 Nephi 9:4).
as an introduction to his discourse on the Savior and the atonement (most of 2 Nephi 9).
so that those listening might ". . .behold how great the covenants of the Lord, and how great his condescensions unto the children of men; and because of his greatness, and his grace and mercy, he has promised unto us that our seed shall not utterly be destroyed, according to the flesh, but that he would preserve them; and in future generations they shall become a righteous branch unto the house of Israel" (2 Nephi 9:53).
to show the Nephites how they fit into God's plan in the world (2 Nephi 10).
to explain that cut off from Jerusalem =\= "cast off" from the Lord (2 Nephi 10:20).
to stress that the land they were now in possession of was "a better land" and they were led there by the Lord (2 Nephi 10:20).
to remind them that "the promises of the Lord unto [us]" are "great" (2 Nephi 10:21).
to show them that they are not the only Israelites in this situation; God has led others away, too. (2 Nephi 10:21-22).
to show them that " the Lord remembereth all them who have been broken off, wherefore he remembereth us also" (2 Nephi 10:22).
to let them know that they can "cheer up" and not be controlled by their situation and negative feelings (2 Nephi 10:20, 23);
and, to let them know that now is the most important time for them, and that they need to worry more about repenting now continually feel anxiety regarding their and their seed's future. (2 Nephi 10:20, 23-24).
Now, it is true that God says:
"Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto THY SEED, and THEM WHO SHALL BE NUMBERED AMONG THY SEED, forever, for the land of their inheritance. . ." (2 Nephi 10:19). Well, we already have Zoram and Sam. No other interpretation be needed, though it's possible. Here God is already saying that there will definitely, at some time, be others who will join the seed of the Nephites. However, then Jacob says:
"And now, my beloved brethren, seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember him, and lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for WE ARE NOT CAST OFF; nevertheless, we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea" (2 Nephi 10:20).
"But great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, THERE MUST NEEDS BE MORE THAN THIS, and THEY ARE INHABITED ALSO BY OUR BRETHREN" (2 Nephi 10:22).
"For behold, THE LORD GOD HAS LED AWAY FROM TIME TO TIME FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, ACCORDING TO HIS WILL AND PLEASURE. And now behold, the LORD REMEMBERETH ALL THEM WHO HAVE BEEN BROKEN OFF, wherefore he remembereth US also" (2 Nephi 10:22).
Jacob seems to go to great lengths to comfort the Nephites about their own particular situation, and how it was not completely unique, explaining that there were many other Israelites in their same situation; were there already other Israelites there, the Nephites would hardly need to be reminded/ taught this.
----------------
Gardner:
So far we have examined points of correspondence that only require contact with another people. Now we turn to events that require the particular cultural content of Mesoamerica at the very time period of the Book of Mormon event. The first example is another of Jacob's sermons. In this case, we have Jacob's first recorded sermon in his own book, encompassing Jacob chapters 2 and 3. This sermon is much more problematic than Jacob's discourse on the future salvation by Gentiles. The first problem is his choice of topics. Jacob has two major problems with his people. He will decry their use of riches, and he will preach against their adoption of polygyny.
This sermon is much more problematic than Jacob's discourse on the future salvation by Gentiles. The first problem is his choice of topics. Jacob has two major problems with his people. He will decry their use of riches, and he will preach against their adoption of polygyny.
On the surface of the discourse we have the structural problem of the relationship between these two topics. Even given the presence of both problems in society, what is the linkage between the two that suggests that they be treated in the same sermon?
------------
****What is the "linkage between the two topics"? Gardner himself has just explained: "Jacob has two major problems with his people." Not to mention what Jacob says in Jacob 1:17--"Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, HAVING FIRST OBTAINED MINE ERRAND FROM THE LORD." And, in Jacob 2:11--"Wherefore, I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, thus came the word unto me, saying: Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and DECLARE THE WORD WHICH I SHALL GIVE THEE UNTO THIS PEOPLE." There it is--the Lord told him what to talk about. And why would these two topics "be treated in the same sermon"? For the same reason. I have spoken myself like this in church, as have many others--nothing surprising to anyone, I think, to hear more than one topic in a sermon. And besides--well, they're NOT "treated in the same sermon". Jacob finishes one, then starts the next, as we see: "And now I MAKE AN END of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I MUST SPEAK UNTO YOU CONCERNING A GROSSER CRIME, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you" (Jacob 2:22). "But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. . ." (Jacob 2:23).
------------
After the Nephites had existed as an entity for about forty years (see Jacob 1:1), their men began "desiring many wives and concubines" (Jacob 1:15).
How many descendants of the original party would there have been by that time? We can safely suppose that adaptation to foods, climate, disease, and natural hazards would have posed some problems, although we cannot quantify those effects.
Let us at least start to bracket the possible growth in numbers by setting an upper limit that is at the edge of absurdity. Assume a birth rate twice as high as in today's "less developed countries," a rate perhaps not even attainable by any population. Let us also suppose no deaths at all! Under those conditions, if the initial Nephite group was comprised of twenty-four persons, as I calculate generously, by the time of Jacob 2, they would have reached a population of 330, of whom perhaps seventy would be adult males and the same number adult females. Of course the unreality of that number means we must work downward. Using a more reasonable figure for the birth rate and factoring in deaths, we see that the actual number of adults would be unlikely to exceed half of what we first calculated--say, thirty-five males and thirty-five females. Even that is far too large to satisfy experts on the history of population growth.3 With such limited numbers as these, the group's cultural preference for "many wives and concubines" would be puzzling. The fact that the plural marriage preference for the early Nephites is reported as a cultural fact seems to call for a larger population of females. If so, it could only have come about by incorporating "other" people.
-----------------
****First, population growth; then, polygamy:
"Assume a birth rate twice as high as in today's "less developed countries," a rate perhaps not even attainable by any population."
The promised land was hardly that. There was little reason not to limit growth, as the promised land seemed to provide plenty of everything that was needed, including space/ land, crops, flocks, adequate housing, moderate climate, etc. The Book of Mormon describes very few of these above-mentioned problems; beside, wild beasts are only mentioned in other parts of the land; and, compared to surviving on raw meat in the desert (which they did for 8 years), and then surviving on a ship (which they did for a while), to these rugged desert dwellers, the promised land would have been like heaven in this regard. Especially when considering that during their whole trip to the new land, only one death is mentioned--that of Ishmael.
Nephi says animals were plentiful (see below about animals), and they brought lots of seeds (see below also); besides, lack of adaptation to foods rarely results in death. It sounds like a safe paradise, and only war would inhibit reproduction and multiplying.
If they were in Central America, they probably didn't have droughts or lack of water, cold winters with snow, etc. It seems that there was plenty of tillable land to support the population with food.
Being primarily farmers and herders, lots of children might have been a blessing to help with work.
Fevers and sickness are mentioned later in Alma 46:40, but then goes on to say not really, because of the great medicine--but when they learned that, who knows, unless they learned it from others already there from the beginning, which would mean sicknesses weren't much of a problem for their population growth. Of course, this is almost 550 years later, or so. It then says that "many died of old age" in Alma 46:41, which doesn't seem to support an argument for lots of young deaths.
Also, remember--they were Mormons! This is a people who remembers that children are a blessing of the Lord, and they desire to have as many children as possible; on the other hand, the Lamanites might have figured that the more children they had, the easier it would be to accomplish what many might have seen as their "purpose in life"--to have victory over the Nephites. It seems that land was not a problem for the Nephites, as we see in the few available instances that everyone had enough land to sustain themselves (as in Alma 3 Nephi ). Not only that, but by obeying the Lord, they were prospered in the land by Him, which means that they were definitely not in the same category as a modern "less developed country."
My grandparents each had about 14 siblings, most all of whom grew up and had quite a few, too. Look at many Utah/ Idaho families. It is not unheard of for Mormons to have 10-14 children now.
Lots of very poor families in Mexico and Latin America currently have lots of children. Now imagine that they are all church members, and that they know that all needs were supplied.
Nor did Lehi and Ishmael seem to have any problems with having lots of children. Most children from large families have many children, too. By being more isolated, most of their children would have though it normal and expected to have that many children. Ten children would not be anything extraordinary.
And let's take it a little further: if Sariah and Ishmael's wife had borne twins or multiple children, which are more likely to bear twins, then perhaps some of their children had twins, and on down.
What if Nephi's married sisters were all older than the sons? If Lehi's siblings were all two years apart; and there were two-four older daughters, then they would have been possibly eight years older than Laman, and fourteen years older than Nephi. Had they married young, as females, they could have been married when Nephi was born. It wouldn't be impossible if the oldest had had 8 children by the time Nephi got married! These children would also have been much, much older than Jacob and Joseph.
Also, remember the servants and others.
It is extremely hard for me to come to any other conclusion than this: to propose and use a population growth model that is based on modern "experts" is ludicrous.
So, let's go to the higher end of the scale, and make it somewhat extreme, yet possible: were each person in the group to have 10 children who reached maturity-- married and started bearing at the age of 16 (especially easy with matched marriages), and finished when they were 45--and each succeeding generation the same, then you have a whole lot of people in a very short time, and it especially seems that way if everyone is spread out farming and herding instead of living in high-rise apartment buildings downtown. After 3 generations of 40 years each (120 years), they (Nephites + Lamanites) could (10 children each bearing 10, etc.) total 2,500 people. Adding two more generations of 40 years each, the number could grow to 41,250 Lamanites and 21,250 Nephites. "Why that's impossible!" you might say. But, why couldn't it be like that? Why not?
**** Likewise, "many wives and concubines" need not mean 20 women per man; wouldn't a few women satisfy that definition for a very strict, righteous man like Jacob?
Also, one striking major problem with polygamy for a smaller group would have been not only the sin, but the small, limited number of sexually-reproductive women if all the men wanted them all. Who would the other growing up young men marry and establish a family with and reproduce with? Thus, polygamy was not just the sin of not delighting in the chastity of women, it also meant the lack of marriage for other men, and a greater negative effect on Nephite society.
It is also probable that some men died in those wars and contentions, leaving more women and also widows, possibly with children. So, it's easy to see that the women could outnumber the men, yet the group remain very small. Who wants to bear another man's burden? The remaining living men could easily think, why would I want to support a woman (and her children) if I weren't married to her? Especially if the group was limited to a few families, it would make sense that if a married men died in battle, his brother would marry his wife (law of Moses). This could easily lead from the limited/ special case polygamy of the law of Moses, to generalized polygamy. We see a similar situation of bearing the burden of widows with Limhi's people, another small group, though as king he commanded the men to support other widows.
With a large number, you wouldn't think as much about having many wives and concubines as you would if you were in a smaller group--the closeness between the people and the disproportion is greater, clearer, and stays with you more.
Here's the introduction to the polygamy part:
"Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites" (Jacob 1:13).
"But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:14).
"And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son" (Jacob 1:15).
Notice that Jacob does not mention any other group of people--if you're not a Lamanite, you're a Nephite. No one else, no other possibility, not even a third or neutral or distant group of peoples. And how is it possible that any other hamlet/ hamlets of previous people(s) would so easily melt into Nephite culture, when the Nephites were the very outnumbered outsiders? This would be most likely if there were a king or small group of leaders who could decide for everyone; but with members of the same race spread out in hamlets, how could that happen? Arguing that outsiders are already in the Nephite group seems to be a circumlocution argument.
If the Nephites were marrying outsiders as wives and concubines, one might expect Jacob to talk about the dangers of doing so, along with it not being right. But Jacob only mentions polygamy and how some probably excused themselves through the Bible. He doesn't mention anything about outside influences leading to this situation of polygamy, but he relates this happening to an occurrence in the Bible, which to me seems to mean that the Nephites were excusing themselves because of it, perhaps while the Lamanites, not having the Bible, wouldn't, or didn't. Jacob says that the Lamanites remember the commandment given to Lehi, but the Nephites don't. In fact, he doesn't mention anything about marrying nonbelieving wives. So it seems safer to assume that the (extra) wives, and concubines, were already in the group, and "believers". The only other scenario I can see is that (1) this part was excluded from the records or (2) the outsiders were also the covenant people of the Lord. Jacob does not talk about Solomon and his nonbelieving wives and how they led him astray, nor does he say anything about the tribes marrying other people with other beliefs and how that would affect the covenant, nor does he talk about how marrying outside the covenant affects the children. In Jacob 3:10, Jacob says "Wherefore, ye shall remember your children, how that ye have grieved their hearts because of the example that ye have set before them; and also, remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day." Jacob mentions that the fathers' examples and filthiness affect the children, but he says nothing about false beliefs, customs, etc.
Which brings up another point. When the Lord curses the Lamanites, he gives the reason for it:
"And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction" (Alma 3:8).
Notice that this curse is only on those in Lehi's and Ishmael's families:
"And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women" (Alma 3:7).
It seems that the Lord doesn't worry about them mixing with "others"; why? If the Lord were to worry about them mixing with "others", why is there no curse on "others", to distinguish the righteous from the unrighteous, the true beliefs from the false--especially if they were marrying into both sides of Lehi's family, as most believers of this opinion would believe?
Something I find interesting is that Jacob writes: "Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed A MAN to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:9). This seems strange. It wasn't Jacob, the next in line; nor seemingly Nephi's son. Written this way, I infer a man who would be a stranger to us, and not of their family, possibly even a person somewhat remote to their group. Yet then, a few verses later Jacob writes this:
"Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites."
"But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:13-14).
--------------
Gardner:
An analogous case that Sorenson fails to mention is the problem of wealth among the early Nephites. Jacob informs us:
And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully. And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they. (Jacob 2:12-13)
These verses give the appearance of a direct relationship between gold and silver and the wealth that they have obtained. This makes sense to a culture raised on the Western notions of intrinsic value in the metals, but in the context of an early Nephite culture both of these verses are nonsense unless others are in the land.
Gardner:
Our first problem with Jacob's sermon is that he is presenting what would be an impossible situation if we assume the city of Nephi is isolated in the land. He suggests that they have become wealthy because of the gold and silver that they have found, elements that he calls abundant.8 This should be impossible. First of all, in a Mesoamerican economy, gold and silver had no intrinsic value. They continued to lack intrinsic value for Mesoamerican populations up to the time of the Conquest when the Spaniards rather forcibly imposed their own values for gold and silver. Secondly, it is hard to get rich from gold and silver ore.
----------
****Why is this "nonsense"? Didn't the "early Nephite culture" come from, relate to, and remember the old world? Didn't the wealth that Lehi had at Jerusalem consist of "his gold, and his silver, and his precious things" (1 Nephi 2:4, 3:22)? Would it be so hard to believe that Nephites and Lamanites (see Alma 17:13-14), familiar with gold, silver, and precious things (including "precious ores"), would use it as a measure of wealth? Or, that a monetary system could grow from it? In fact, doesn't the Book of Mormon say that "Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah" (Alma 11:4)? The Nephites "altered" the system--"in every generation, until the reign of the judges"--sounds like every generation would include from the beginning.
What about King Noah? If that were all so, it seems that one must assume that this group of Nephites which is in Lamanite bondage, is not really cut off from other groups, as king Noah taxed his subjects' precious metals and food for the support of himself and the other leaders (see Mosiah 11:3-4). If they were not really cut off, how come "outsiders" play no part in any of the lonely Nephite situation? How do all these "outsiders" mingle so freely and wander among, and trade with, both the Lamanites and the Nephites, especially when the Lamanites like to take these things by force?
Later, we see that both the Lamanites and the Nephites have lots of gold, silver, etc., and it seems that it is because of the trading ONE WITH ANOTHER, not with "others":
"And it came to pass that the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites; and thus they did have free intercourse ONE WITH ANOTHER, to buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire."
"And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north" (Helaman 6:8-9)
And once more, there is plenty of precious metals in all the land.
Why is it hard to get rich from gold and silver ore?
It seems to me that this argument is really based on a very shaky foundation--"since I believe the Nephites and Lamanites were in Mesoamerica, and 'in a Mesoamerican economy, gold and silver had no intrinsic value', then . . ."
----------
Third, it is difficult to get rich on anything that anyone can find in abundance. 12 discloses that gold and silver (and "all manner of precious ores") are plentiful in the land. The very fact that they are plentiful is a direct dismissal of their economic value.
Value is a relative term, and nothing that is plentiful-no matter what it is-makes one wealthy if one's neighbor has an equal amount of it.
----------
****"Plentiful" does not dismiss their economic value--it just possibly changes the system a little. For example, land and crops are plentiful for all in an agrarian society, and land and flocks for all in a shepherding society; yet, there are certainly differences in wealth. That they are plentiful does not lead that anyone may obtain as much as they want with no effort, and that all will obtain alike--though were this the case, Jacob says that the reason some are richer than others is because "the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have OBTAINED MORE ABUNDANTLY THAN THAT OF YOUR BRETHREN. . ." Well, there it is--it is very abundant; maybe everyone CAN get it--but some get it more than others, and maybe only due to "the hand of providence"--"luck", or something where there is not a strong correlation between effort and reward. One might strike a vein, while another might pan a few ounces a week, etc.
Notice that Jacob gives no relationship between "obtaining precious metals = trade = greater wealth"; only "obtaining precious metals = greater wealth".
Also, if gold and silver are plentiful to everyone in the land--not just Nephites and Lamanites--why would it be of value to the Nephites and Lamanites for trade only? In other words, if the people they were trading with already had gold, silver, and precious ores, what worth would they have, according to this, unless they were trading with "others" that were way out of the land? Remember, there was "an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north" (Helaman 6:9) Interestingly enough, in the verse previous to that, Helaman 6:8, we read that "And it came to pass that the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites; and thus they did have free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire". Lamanites and Nephites, "one with another"--not with any outside group(s). And if precious metals were so plentiful, and led to great trade, why didn't Nephites and Lamanites have constant wars defending it from "outsiders"?
So, if two people have a billion dollars and can live a comfortable life, they aren't rich? I believe that you are assuming that a relative inflation is built into this system.
Even manna sent from heaven, which required no work to produce and diligence to grow, was not necessarily eaten in the same amounts by all--if you didn't gather, you didn't eat! Precious ores are a little more difficult than that.
---------
Gardner:
In the case of gold and silver, we assume that the metals are valuable because they can purchase things. If we think of an early Nephite population isolated from all other populations, what could gold or silver "buy"? In a barter world, where the necessities of food and shelter are paramount, piling up gold and silver rocks in the back of one's home doesn't lead to wealth but to time taken from more productive and important chores. You cannot trade gold for food if everyone has gold. It has no exchange value.
----------
****I guess this is the explanation for why American farmers are so poor? ;)
Everywhere, food and shelter are paramount. But if you already have them, then what?
This is saying that even a righteous people can easily distinguish between needs and wants--is this something one sees with, let's say, modern Utah LDS? Anything can buy anything, depending on people's wants and values.
Everyone has money, but I can still buy stuff with it--in other words, it still has "exchange value". Just that some have more than others.
"It has no exchange value." Hearing this from an American is very interesting, because unlike gold and silver, the paper money the USA uses now has no intrinsic value, nor even representative value--and hasn't for quite a while. Though there's plenty of it created every day from thin air, the economy has kept on for over half a century. At least precious metals are certain.
And like we don't buy expensive "wants" for ourselves, even when we don't have our needs.
A barter system is used/ can be used only for "necessities"? Hardly!
All throughout the Book of Mormon, precious metals have value and/ or are used as a system. Even when it seems to be only the Nephites (and Lamanites) versus the Gadianton robbers (Lamanites and Nephites), the Nephites still keep their gold, silver, and precious things:
"And it came to pass that they had not eaten up all their provisions; therefore they did take with them all that they had not devoured, of all their grain of every kind, and their GOLD, AND THEIR SILVER, AND ALL THEIR PRECIOUS THINGS, and they did return to their own lands and their possessions, both on the north and on the south, both on the land northward and on the land southward" (3 Nephi 6:2).
----------
Gardner:
Jacob 2:13 indicates even more clearly that others must have been present and that the Nephites had active commerce with them. A result of the "wealth" of the Nephites is that they begin to wear costly apparel. Again our modern sensibilities trick us into an assumption that this would be logical. However, if no others are present and the Nephites are isolated as a small group, how does one obtain costly apparel? In a society without stores, in which everyone must make his or her own clothing from the locally available fibers and dyes, where would "costly apparel" come from? If all members of the society have access to the same materials and dyes, they simply copy the style-they do not have anything that anyone else does not have, and they certainly do not "purchase" it to render it costly. They make it. These two verses describing the economic conditions of this early Nephite society make sense only if the Nephites are a larger population and are trading goods with other communities.
---
Gardner:
Finally, we have the manifestation of this wealth in "costly apparel."9 This is another situation that should not exist. In an isolated community with no department stores, clothing is made by the community. The same materials are available to all; the same dyes are available to all. Even stylistic changes tend to be widely copied. It is quite common for villages to have an almost uniform dress rather than a segregation created by dress. Under the assumptions that are commonly brought to the Book of Mormon text, that of a group of people alone in the land, it should be virtually impossible to have "costly apparel."
----------
****Yeah, they make it with gold and silver that they found, or somehow integrate the gold and silver with it. How does this relate to "trading goods with other communities"?
The author assumes that any two people in the same community can do the same thing; but in separate communities, no two people can do the same thing, or copy. Don't most Americans have access to the same clothes? Let's face it--most all of us have the same materials available. But, we still don't wear the same clothes. Why? Price is probably the biggest reason. Then there's appeal. Some wear costly apparel nowadays that is high-priced brand names, for example--where the price is high, but for an "unworthy" reason, many would say.
Also, it's a matter of allocation of resources--including time, interpretation of value, and values.
This whole argument of "others" based on economics seems way too overly simplistic and interpretatively limited.
-----------------
Gardner:
There is a condition, however, that explains all of Jacob's economic problems. That condition is trade. As will be noted, not just any trade, but trade in Mesoamerica at this particular point in time. As noted for the coastal region of Guatemala, there were others in the land when the Lehites arrived, and archaeology tells us that there are other populations and cities in the general land when the Nephites arrive at the location of their city, presumed to have been in the Guatemalan highlands. If we assume that the gold and silver were being worked, using metalworking skills Nephi could have taught them, then these worked goods would have exchange value with other cities, and the resulting importation of goods creates a situation where those engaged in the trade accumulate more unique prestige goods than those who do not trade outside of their own city. Thus trade provides precisely the conditions Jacob is combating.
The process of trade would have brought not only esoteric goods, but also a mechanism for the very social differentiation that Jacob excoriates. This is the cultural problem behind the "costly apparel" that will become one of the hallmark themes of the competing religious ideas throughout the rest of the Book of Mormon. In Mesoamerica, the time period of the early Nephites saw developing social stratification, and an increasing pressure towards kingship in the cities of the Maya lands. This social differentiation was supported by the accumulation of esoteric goods, often displayed on the clothing of the elite. As Schele and Mathews put it, "People throughout Mesoamerica wore these currencies as jewelry and clothing to display the wealth and enterprise of their families."10 Bringing in clothing and adornments from other locations is a way to create a differentiation in dress. When the clothing itself becomes the display mode for elite consumption goods, then the costly apparel in and of itself becomes the marker of the increasing economic and social distance between developing classes. It is important to remember that Jacob's issue is never wealth, but rather the social stratification that was based on wealth. The costly apparel was a unique Mesoamerican mode of creating and displaying that social separation. The pressures for creating social stratification that we see beginning in the city of Nephi mirror the greater trend in the entire Mesoamerican cultural area at just this point in time.
The presence of trade relations with other Mesoamerican communities therefore provides a context in which we may understand Jacob's sermon denouncing social stratification through wealth, particularly wealth manifest through costly apparel.
----------------
****Hold on, I'm quite confused--I thought we just read, from Gardner, that: "First of all, in a Mesoamerican economy, gold and silver had no intrinsic value. They continued to lack intrinsic value for Mesoamerican populations up to the time of the Conquest when the Spaniards rather forcibly imposed their own values for gold and silver." So, do they have value in mesoamerica or not? Which one is it: "[no value in mesoamerica]", or "[high value right next door, and all over mesoamerica]"? If precious ores are all over the land, how come it's not in the mountains (maybe a few miles away?), but down in the valleys and by the seashore? If you want to go the trade route, a very outside "other", such as by shipping or long journey trade, seems much more plausible.
All throughout the Book of Mormon, precious metals are used as a system. Here's the strongest point for trade: even when it seems to be only the Nephites (and Lamanites) versus the Gadianton robbers, the Nephites still keep their gold, silver, and precious things: "And it came to pass that they had not eaten up all their provisions; therefore they did take with them all that they had not devoured, of all their grain of every kind, and their GOLD, AND THEIR SILVER, AND ALL THEIR PRECIOUS THINGS, and they did return to their own lands and their possessions, both on the north and on the south, both on the land northward and on the land southward" (3 Nephi 6:2).
Why would the Gadianton robbers want that stuff, if they couldn't eat it? If the robbers were all brothers and shared together, what good would it be to have? Unless, they could trade it with other groups of peoples. But, who would be willing to trade with Gadianton robbers?
Were the Lamanites involved in this war? It doesn't say that they were. But, wouldn't the Gadianton robbers have attacked them, the easy prey, first, and taken their things? When food was scarce, wouldn't the Gadianton robbers have killed the Lamanites to avoid fighting with them over eating wild animals? The only other reason I can think of is that the Nephites believed that they would triumph and society would continue pretty much as they knew it.
On the other hand:
How could any group possibly survive outside of the Nephites and Gadianton Robbers, especially at the time in the book of 3 Nephi, especially when the Gadianton Robbers inhabited and infested the mountains (which is usually the last place of refuge)?
----------------
Gardner:
. . . we again must note that Jacob's denunciation of polygyny is problematic for multiple reasons, none of which have to do with the obvious difference between Jacob's denunciation and historical LDS polygamy.
First, Jacob consistently equates having more than one wife with whoredoms and unchastity. This is as impossible as valuable gold that is easily found. Note that Jacob clearly speaks of wives, not of harlots. All societies that accept multiple wives have legal regulations that legitimize the union. A plural wife is a wife, and relations with a wife do not fall under the rubric of whoredoms in any society. Thus, Jacob is somehow in the position of having a type of union that someone recognizes as a wife, but which he (and the Lord) do not.
----------------
****I agree that riches, multiple wives, and trade with others COULD be related--it's a possibility, but definitely not a necessity.
It's not hard to imagine that some men, reading about David and Solomon, married more than one woman and called them both, or at least understood them both to be wives, by being committed to them and supporting them. It doesn't have to mean that society accepted it or not, or whether it was legal or not. It's not the easiest to prove that a woman is married to a man, or even that they are committing whoredoms. To these men, and to a few others, the woman is a wife. To their first wife, and to society in general, the woman is much less. Look at Taiwan. Some men, especially the older wealthy ones, have illegal second wives. Some even have three. It is usually not a huge secret, though they usually don't go around telling everyone (especially their first wife!). They can't excuse it on scripture, either, unlike the Nephites. And no, they didn't learn it from or because of trade--it's their own history, just like with the Nephites.
----------------
Gardner:
. . .Jacob also describes the fate of the wives and children in ways that make no sense. He speaks of the daughters of Jerusalem being led away captive11 and their children being brought into destruction.12 It is hard to see how the very fact of multiple wives can be equated to captivity, and cause the destruction of their children. Many factors in a marriage might be considered to yield such an end, but not the very fact of a marriage.
Once again, the cultural context of Mesoamerica gives us a way of seeing this text and removing those difficulties. The same context of trade provides the answer. The development of social segregation in Mesoamerica has been the subject of multiple theories and studies, but one study uses the archaeological information to support the hypothesis that the development of "institutionalized social inequality and political privilege"13 was due to the internal social pressures of personal advancement. In terms of this theory, such seekers of advantage are termed "aggrandizers."
"Aggrandizers simply strive to become more influential. It is the successful deployment of resources and labor that ultimately ensure the social and political longevity of an aggrandizer."14 Building renown commences in the nuclear unit of production. An aggrandizer first accumulates deployable resources by the sweat of his brow, and through the efforts of his wife (wives) and children. The more wives and children the better."15
The linkage between economics and multiple wives is absolutely parallel between Mesoamerica and the situation we see in the city of Nephi. The communities with which trade would have been established would certainly have had men with multiple wives among the most influential, and those would also be the ones with the most excess production to trade. Along with the trade goods, the mechanisms of achieving the excess production for trade would be carried back to the Nephites. The Nephite men who were taking wives were precisely the same as those who were seeking to exalt themselves over their neighbors, using the trade-acquired "costly apparel." These particular Nephites fit the description of the aggrandizers, and it would not be surprising that they would attempt to adopt the accumulation methods of those they saw as successful role models for trade. Their adoption of plural wives would be modeled after foreign law, not Nephite law, and therefore subject to Jacob's denunciation as a non-sanctioned union, even though it could be seen as a legitimate wife in the greater cultural context of the region.
--------------
****Nowhere do I see in the Book of Mormon this "linkage between economics and multiple wives" that "is absolutely parallel between Mesoamerica and the situation we see in the city of Nephi". It might be absolutely parallel in mesoamerica, but the Book of Mormon fails to mention any relationship. Nor do I see in the Book of Mormon where it says that "the Nephite men who were taking wives were precisely the same as those who were seeking to exalt themselves over their neighbors, using the trade-acquired 'costly apparel'". In fact, of all the things one might expect to hear relating these two sermons and interwoven among them, would be Jacob saying so. He doesn't. He shows no relationship, nor hints to one, at all.
--------------
Gardner:
The last piece of information that finishes elucidating the problematic aspects of Jacob's denunciation of polygyny is the probable exchange of wives with another community. The practice of the social exchange of wives to establish close bonds is well understood in human history. We may easily imagine that a daughter who was brought out of Jerusalem, as noted in Jacob 2:32-33, who was sent to another village might consider her marriage as a form of captivity because of the separation from her known community and background. The children are under threat of destruction because of the foreign ideas being brought into the community. Certainly children born of Nephite women in other communities would have little opportunity to grow up with the Nephite god, and therefore be subject to spiritual destruction. If the Book of Mormon events of the early city of Nephi took place in highland Guatemala as Sorenson's correlation suggests, this scenario is more probable than any other, and fits the text of the Book of Mormon better than any other explanation.
--------------
****Captivity and destruction could also result from the promise made to Lehi: obeying the commandments would bring prosperity, but disobeying them would bring destruction. This is what we read in Jacob 3:5:
". . .the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father--that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them." It seems that Lehi received a commandment that they were to have only one wife; the will of God had been precisely given, and the matter was clear to all; yet, the Nephites broke this commandment--wouldn't captivity and destruction be the result, according to the promise of the Lord?
What Gardner fails to mention, is that David and Solomon both had wives that were from "conquered" or foreign peoples, and that displacing a believing wife with a nonbelieving wife, who then teaches the Nephite children to not believe, also fits this description.
---------------
The account of Sherem's encounter with Jacob reiterates the question. "Some [ten more?] years had passed away," and Jacob was now verging on "old" (cf. Jacob 7:1, 20-26). At that time "there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem" (Jacob 7:1). Upon first meeting Jacob, he said, "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard . . . that thou goest about much, preaching" (Jacob 7:6). Now, the population of adult males descended from the original group could not have exceeded fifty at that time. This would have been only enough to populate one modest-sized village. Thus Sherem's is a strange statement. Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved. Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came . . . among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase.
Gardner:
With the clear enmity between lineal Nephites and Lamanites at this early period, it is unlikely that Sherem was a Lamanite born after the separation of the two colonies, yet that would be the only other possibility if we do not factor "others" into the equation.
Ash:
Since Jacob was one of the original Lehites in the New World, the maximum adult population among the Lehites couldn’t have been more than a dozen people. Yet Sherem had come from another settlement and had never met Jacob, the chief Nephite priest.
-------------
****"And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem."
Think about this: were Sherem a stranger who literally/ physically came among them from the outside/ another place, how then would he have been able to have "a perfect knowledge of the language of the people" (Jacob 7:4)? Then, why would Jacob have asked him if he had read the scriptures, and how could Sherem have told Jacob that he had read the scriptures and understood them? (Jacob 7:10: "And I said unto him: Believest thou the scriptures? And he said, Yea.") If he were from the outside, where did Sherem get the scriptures, or how did he read them? And why would Jacob believe his answer about having read them? Perhaps Jacob wrote this part to stress that he wasn't a stranger to the Nephites.
This "came. . .among" in Jacob 7:1 could mean that he "rose up". (See "In the Name of Love" (by U2): "One man come in the name of love. . ." Well, Martin Luther King didn't "come" as in "come/ go". He "rose up" might be a better way to say it.) In Helaman 7:25, Nephi says: "Yea, wo be unto you because of that great abomination which has COME AMONG you; and ye have united yourselves unto it, yea, to that secret band which was established by Gadianton!" Well, it wasn't a strange group of outsiders that "brought" the secret band of Gadianton to the Nephites. This use is also supported by 2 Nephi 10:3, where Jacob writes: "Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name--should COME AMONG the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him--for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God." Once again, Jesus didn't "come among" the Jews from the outside, unless you want to stretch it and count coming back from Egypt; but he had originally been from them. Or, unless you want to count coming down from heaven; but in that case, everyone would be in the same sense. Also, in Helaman 6:2, it says: "For behold, there were many of the Nephites who had become hardened and impenitent and grossly wicked, insomuch that they did reject the word of God and all the preaching and prophesying which did COME AMONG them." Unless all the prophets were from outside groups, I don't believe the strict interpretation of "come among" holds. Samuel the Lamanite, in Helaman 13:26, , ". . .if a prophet COME AMONG you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and CAST HIM OUT and seek all manner of ways to destroy him. . ." Then, in Helaman 13:27, he says, ". . .if a man shall COME AMONG YOU and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth--and if a man shall COME AMONG you and say this, ye will RECEIVE HIM. . ." Though Samuel came among them from the lands of the Lamanites, I doubt he meant "come among", "cast him out", and "receive him" in literal, straightforward, one-way interpretations only--what, could no prophets and false prophets exist among the Nephites, but only come from outside the Nephites? Hardly so. Also, in Mosiah 11:20, we read: "And it came to pass that there was a man AMONG them whose name was Abinadi; and he WENT FORTH AMONG them, and began to prophesy, saying: Behold, thus saith the Lord, and thus hath he commanded me, saying, GO FORTH, and say unto this people, thus saith the Lord--Wo be unto this people, for I have seen their abominations, and their wickedness, and their whoredoms; and except they repent I will visit them in mine anger"; and then, in Mosiah 12:1: "And it came to pass that after the space of two years that Abinadi CAME AMONG them in disguise, that they knew him not, and began to prophesy among them, saying: Thus has the Lord commanded me, saying--Abinadi, GO and prophesy unto this my people, for they have hardened their hearts against my words; they have repented not of their evil doings; therefore, I will visit them in my anger, yea, in my fierce anger will I visit them in their iniquities and abominations." Well, there was only one people for Abinadi at this time, and he was there among them already. If Abinadi were already there among them, how could he "go"? On the other hand, some uses of "come among" are in the way you mention, such as in Alma 7:8 and Alma 20:13.
Or, Sherem, being a wise man, especially having seen evidence, knew that the Lamanites could only overcome the Nephites through the Nephites' wickedness, and therefore had come over peacefully from the Lamanites to corrupt the Nephites, which would allow the Lamanites to overcome them.
Or, perhaps desiring to rise up and be the leader of the Nephites, without the Lamanites, he left the Lamanites to corrupt the Nephites, then wanted to politically overcome them later.
Or, more probably, Sherem could have been from a group that split away from the Nephites earlier. Looking at the record, maybe even 50 years could have passed away since then. Somewhere in that time it would not have been improbable for a small group, especially if it were just a couple or family or two, to splinter away. There's plenty of that happening in the Book of Mormon all the time. To those who say it would have been mentioned, remember the Amalekites--major players later on, yet not even their splintering off is mentioned.
Sherem, a liar (see Jacob 7:14, 19), was probably practicing his preaching, building his base of followers, and perfecting his doctrine before daring to argue with Jacob. Naturally, he would say that he had tried to speak with him, but just hadn't been able to. Sound familiar?--"I tried to call you, but I couldn't reach you"--yeah, right!
If this is not the correct interpretation, perhaps it is this: Jacob himself writes that ". . .[Sherem] labored diligently that he might lead away the hearts of the people, insomuch that he did lead away many hearts; and he knowing that I, Jacob, had faith in Christ who should come, he sought much opportunity that he might come unto me" (Jacob 7:3). This sounds much more like Jacob was trying to avoid the head-to-head confrontation, not that there were so many people they never ran into each other, and so on. Also, none of this states or even implies that Jacob hadn't known Sherem before this time, or that Sherem had been around preaching for years, contrary to what is inferred in the article: "How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement?" He might have known him and seen him often before Sherem started his preaching.
". . .that thou goest about much, preaching": being a priest and a teacher over the people of Nephi, especially if with only his brother Joseph to help, he would have had the responsibility of "home teaching", etc.; in addition, he had to work for a living-- probably farming and tending flocks--somewhat time-consuming, as those who have done it can testify. Understanding this context, the statement then makes more sense.
Not only that, it's also a nice form of flattery and buttering up.
Also, we read in Jacob 7:16, 17 that "And it came to pass that [Sherem] said unto the people: Gather together on the morrow, for I shall die; wherefore, I desire to speak unto THE PEOPLE before I shall die. And it came to pass that on the morrow the MULTITUDE WERE GATHERED together. . ."
It seems obvious that he had preached his doctrine to all the people; to everyone--a hard thing to do if numerous Nephites and many "other" peoples were spread out among many cities ("And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved."); he had not asked to speak to "my believers", or "this village", but "the people".
Also, IF "on the morrow" means the next day, the people could be gathered without prior notice or preparation for the next day. I assume that unlike King Benjamin, there wasn't a special holiday/s where the people were probably already preparing to go to the temple, or unlike Jesus, when it was. . .well, Jesus. (3 Nephi 19:2-4: here "on the morrow" is used to signify "tomorrow/ the next day".)
In Alma 47:35, we read:
"And it came to pass that Amalickiah sought the favor of the queen, and took her unto him to wife; and thus by his fraud, and by the assistance of his cunning servants, he obtained the kingdom; yea, he was acknowledged king throughout all the land, among all the people of the Lamanites, who were composed of the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites, and all the dissenters of the Nephites, from the reign of Nephi down to the present time."
"All the dissenters of the Nephites, from the reign of Nephi down to the present time"--this phrase helps clear up a few things. First, it seems that the dissenters always fled to the Lamanites. Why not another group, nation, or "others"? Second, "from the reign of Nephi"--clearly, that's long before Jacob (Sherem), and much earlier than the first mention of the Amalekites, the first large group of dissenters that we read about.
Then, Jacob writes: ". . .the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a LONESOME and a solemn people. . . (Jacob 7:26). "Lonesome" doesn't sound like they were mingling and mixing with lots of other peoples, especially those who believed in the same religion.
-------------
Sorenson:
The reports of intergroup fighting in these early generations also seem to refer to larger forces than growth by births alone would have allowed. At the twenty-five-year mark of their history, Nephi already reported that they had had "wars" with the Lamanites (see 2 Nephi 5:34), yet the male descendants of the original Nephites could not reasonably have numbered more than a score by the time these "wars" are mentioned. Later, in Jacob's old age, the "wars" mentioned in Jacob 7:26 would have been fought with a maximum of fifty on his side and not dramatically more for the attackers. Either the expression "war" was being used loosely at this point in the account or else the population springing from the original Lehites had already been augmented by "others," it appears to me.
------------
****See response to small numbers of fighting men for "war" at the beginning of page 4.
Later (Jacob 7:24, 25), Jacob writes: "And it came to pass that many means were devised to reclaim and restore the LAMANITES. . .and they had an eternal hatred against US, THEIR BRETHREN. And they sought by the power of their arms to DESTROY US CONTINUALLY (this sounds like war). Wherefore, the people of Nephi. . .became as yet, conquerors of THEIR ENEMIES ("the Lamanites", in the plural--not the Lamanites AND (lots of) others).
Also, in Words Of Mormon 1:13: "And it came to pass also that the ARMIES OF THE LAMANITES came down out of the land of Nephi, to battle against his people. But behold, king Benjamin gathered together his armies, and he did stand against them. . .
Words Of Mormon 1:14: And in the strength of the Lord they did contend against their ENEMIES, UNTIL THEY HAD SLAIN MANY THOUSANDS OF THE LAMANITES. And it came to pass that they did contend against the Lamanites until they had driven them out of all the lands of their inheritance."
Thus, here it seems that only Lamanites are their enemies.
Then, in Jacob 7:26: . . .and HATED OF OUR BRETHREN, WHICH CAUSED WARS and contentions. . .
In Helaman 12:2, it says that the Lord helps the Nephites by making sure their "enemies don't declare war on them"; at this time, it is the Lamanites and Gadianton robbers (Helaman 11:1, 2) that make the plural.
The end of the great Jaredite war goes through the process of dwindling numbers, though most of the Lamanite/ Nephite wars seem to have hardly been to the death of everyone.
Also, it seems probable that the weapons, especially on the attacking Lamanite side, would not have been as advanced or of as high quality. The Nephites would hardly want to actively and pursuingly kill the Lamanites, as the verses above and elsewhere show.
--------------
Cultural Adaptation and "Others" The point about "war" opens up the larger issue of cultural learning and adaptation in the new land by both Nephites and Lamanites. A pair of telling passages in the book of Mosiah lets us know that some "native" New World people or other had to have provided at least one direct, crucial cultural input to the immigrants. Not long after 200 B.C., Zeniffite King Limhi reminded his people in the land of Nephi that "we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind" (Mosiah 7:22). Note that Limhi mentions "corn" first in the list of tribute crops. In Mosiah 9:14 it is the only crop mentioned at all: "Lamanites . . . began to . . . take off . . . the corn of their fields." Now, "corn" is clearly maize, the native American plant that was the mainstay of the diet of many native American peoples for thousands of years. There is no possibility that Lehi's party brought this key American crop with them or that they discovered it wild upon their arrival. Maize is so totally domesticated a plant that it will not reproduce without human care. In other words, the Zeniffites or any other of Lehi's descendants could only be growing corn/maize because people already familiar with the complex of techniques for its successful cultivation had passed on the knowledge, and the seed, to the newcomers. Notice too that these passages in Mosiah indicate that corn had become the grain of preference among the Lamanites, and perhaps among the Zeniffites. That is, they had apparently integrated it into their system of taste preferences and nutrition as a primary food, for which cooks and diners in turn would have had familiar recipes, utensils, and so on.
-------------
**** "Now, "corn" is clearly maize, the native American plant that was the mainstay of the diet of many native American peoples for thousands of years. . ." I'm sorry, but why is this corn "clearly" maize? How was that clear connection made? I imagine Joseph Smith could have been very clear by saying "maize", but he said "corn" instead. Result? It's not "clearly" maize.
Interesting that some apologists, in explaining about corn and animals, for example, mention that these were probably names given to other things--yet here, corn is "clearly" maize. Looking at Mosiah 7:22 again--"we at this time do pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites, to the amount of one half of our corn, and our barley, and EVEN ALL OUR GRAIN OF EVERY KIND"--I wonder why corn seems to be listed as a grain, when it is not--it sounds as if it is listed as the first grain. In South America, there are many other kinds of grain that were most likely unknown to Joseph Smith. This "corn" could have been any of them, or even Indian corn. Following is a list of some other grains, or what might be considered grains, especially by someone who is not a grain scientist (such as me)--so this is not a scientific list, and might be missing a lot, or might even be redundant: amaranth, barley, buckwheat, corn (blue/ Hopi, popping), kamut, millet, oats, quinoa, rice (basmati, brown, wild, etc.), rye, sorghum, spelt, wheat (durum, red, white). There are also beans/ legumes/ lentils/ others, which might be included in some way: puy lentils, borlotti beans, cannellini beans, foulde medammes, gunga peas, broad beans, pinto beans, soy beans, pearl barley, black-eye beans, mung beans, aduki beans, flageolet beans, wheatgrass, buckwheat, green lentils, garbanzo beans, grean peas, yellow peas, sweet potato, black bean, etc. Perhaps a few of these were grown there, or even their hybrids, which might have even replaced them (so as there really is no word for them to translate).
If it were really maize, here we have another problem of the chicken and the egg: where did these "people already familiar. . ." with corn, get it from? Do you mean to say that people remained in the Americas caring for corn from Adam on down, or from the flood on down, or what? Is maize absolutely only "indigenous" to the Americas? How did maize start, and be continually planted since the beginning of the world, if it "is so totally domesticated. . . it will not reproduce without human care"? Or did someone domesticate it? Do all corns require the same human care? Is it possible that maize was somewhere else, too, but that we still don't know about it? Science is full of anomolies. Just some curious questions in this paragraph, more than anything.
-------------
This situation reminds us of how crucial the natives of Massachusetts were in helping the Puritan settlers in the 1600s survive in the unfamiliar environment they found upon landing. The traditional American Thanksgiving cuisine of turkey, pumpkin, and corn dishes--all native to the New World--is an unconscious tribute to the gift of survival conferred by the Amerindians by sharing those local foods with the confused and hungry Europeans. Did an equivalent cultural exchange and unacknowledged thanksgiving process take place for Lehi's descendants in the Book of Mormon land of first inheritance or land of Nephi? Since it is certain that "others" passed on knowledge about and a taste for corn to the Nephites and Lamanites, it becomes likely that other cultural features also came from them.
--------------
****". . .turkey, pumpkin, and corn dishes--all native to the New World. . ." Side note--that would be wild turkey and Indian corn. And while pumpkin was available, it has never been found mentioned as having been eaten by them at this meal. Also, the main reason for the "confused and hungry and (other negative adjectives) Europeans" had to do more with setting up around Christmas (after over a while of being there) in New England, poor shelter, a harsh winter and lack of supplies, constant vigilance against and fear of Indian attack, and sickness--not lack of food from their summer harvest. In fact, their very first harvest there was very bountiful.
--------------
The keeping of "flocks," for example (Mosiah 9:14; cf. Enos 1:21), was not a pattern which Lehi's folks are said to have brought with them; no animals are mentioned in Nephi's Old World record (it is purely speculation that they utilized camels or any other animals in their trek from Jerusalem to Bountiful). Even if they started out with animals, these would not have survived the party's famine-plagued journey through western Arabia (note, for example, 1 Nephi 16:18-32). Moreover, no hint is given that any were taken aboard Nephi's boat (in specific contrast to the Jaredite case--see Ether 6:4). So how would they have obtained native American fowls or other animals to keep in "flocks," or, more importantly, how would they have discovered techniques for successfully caring for them?
-------------
****Like many things in the Book of Mormon, 'not said =/= not.' On the other hand, let's take a look at what Nephi actually says about seeds and flocks (which seem to be missing from the original article):
"1 Nephi 18:23: And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land.
1 Nephi 18:24: And it came to pass that we did BEGIN TO TILL THE EARTH, and we began to PLANT SEEDS; yea, WE DID PUT ALL OUR SEEDS INTO THE EARTH, WHICH WE HAD BROUGHT FROM THE LAND OF JERUSALEM. And it came to pass that they did GROW EXCEEDINGLY; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.
1 Nephi 18:25: And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were BEASTS IN THE FORESTS OF EVERY KIND, BOTH THE COW AND THE OX, AND THE ASS AND THE HORSE, AND THE GOAT AND THE WILD GOAT, AND ALL MANNER OF WILD ANIMALS, WHICH WERE FOR THE USE OF MEN. And we did find all manner of ORE, BOTH OF GOLD, AND OF SILVER, AND OF COPPER. . .
2 Nephi 5:11: AND THE LORD WAS WITH US; and we did prosper exceedingly; for WE DID SOW SEED, AND WE DID REAP AGAIN IN ABUNDANCE. And we began to RAISE FLOCKS, AND HERDS, AND ANIMALS OF EVERY KIND.
Enos 1:21: And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did TILL THE LAND, AND RAISE ALL MANNER OF GRAIN, AND OF FRUIT, AND FLOCKS OF HERDS, AND FLOCKS OF ALL MANNER OF CATTLE OF EVERY KIND, AND GOATS, AND WILD GOATS, AND ALSO MANY HORSES.
Now, we assume that Lehi was neither a farmer, nor a herder. However, the Lehites had brought seeds with them, and planted them immediately, and knew how to care for and harvest them. Did they bring flocks with them, or animals? Could have, but that is not necessary. Why? Because he says that they found all kinds of animals, including "wild animals, which were for the use of men." In other words, right right after the Lehites landed, they discovered, and Nephi knew about, the uses of animals by man. It is not until 2 Nephi 5, however, that "we BEGAN to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind." Later, in Enos, it says that they were raising them. No animals are mentioned in Enos that Nephi did not mention before in 1 Nephi 18.
Yes, it is possible that animals could have made it through the desert. And if not, wouldn't it be possible to find some or even get some in that port city nearby?
Also, "flocks" seems to mean "herds" (see Enos 1:21: "And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did. . .raise. . .flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses." ).
------------
Discovery or invention of a major cultural feature like the domestication of animals is rare enough in human history that it is highly unlikely that these newcomers could simply have pulled themselves up culturally "by their bootstraps" in this way in a generation or two.
--------------
****This is a surprising statement.
Unfortunately, your only other assumed possibility is that someone had to show them how to do it, right? Look at the American wild horse. Wild one day, domesticated the next. And, it seems very much that it is being assumed that domestication means complete domestication--chickens that don't eat worms or bugs; goats that have to be rounded up every night, have their hooves trimmed, be completely taken care of, eat alfalfa or commercial feed, etc. This is far from the case for many types of animals--potbellied pigs, Soay sheep, etc. need very little work and outside help to prosper.
Speculation here--especially if the animals had lived on their own for a while, it would have insured a hardy stock to domesticate, which might have actually made it easier for them to survive and prosper.
-------------
We will see below that significant, specific cultural features of obvious Jaredite origin appeared later among the Nephites without any explanation of how their transmission was accomplished down through time. It is a safe presumption, however, that some groups existing at the time when the Jaredite armies referred to in Ether 15 were destroyed simply refused to participate in the suicidal madness of Coriantumr and Shiz. They would have ensured their own survival by staying home and minding their meek business in this or that corner of the land.
Such minor peoples might hardly even have noted the distant slaughter of the Jaredite dynasts, so absorbed would they have been in their local affairs. The likelihood is that more than a few such groups continued past the time of the "final destruction" of the Jaredite armies at the hill Ramah, and some could well have been living in the land southward as Nephi and Laman built up their small colonies.
---------------------
****How safe is that presumption? Let's see what the Book of Mormon says about this:
Ether 11:12: "And it came to pass that in the days of Ethem there came many prophets, and prophesied again UNTO THE PEOPLE; yea, they did prophesy that the Lord would UTTERLY DESTROY THEM FROM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH except they repented of their iniquities."
Ether 11:20: And in the days of Coriantor there also came many prophets, and . . .cried repentance UNTO THE PEOPLE, and except they should repent the Lord God would execute judgment against them to their UTTER destruction. . ."
Ether 13:20: "And in the second year the word of the Lord came to Ether, that he should go and prophesy unto Coriantumr that, if he would repent, and all his household, the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people--
Ether 13:21: Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself. And he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; AND EVERY SOUL SHOULD BE DESTROYED SAVE IT WERE CORIANTUMR."
Ether 15:12: "And it came to pass that they did gather together ALL THE PEOPLE upon ALL THE FACE OF THE LAND, WHO HAD NOT BEEN SLAIN, SAVE it was ETHER."
Ether 15:14: "Wherefore, they were FOR THE SPACE OF FOUR YEARS GATHERING TOGETHER THE PEOPLE, THAT THEY MIGHT GET ALL WHO WERE UPON THE FACE OF THE LAND, and that they might receive all the strength which it was possible that they could receive.
Ether 15:15: And it came to pass that when they were ALL gathered together, EVERY ONE to the army which he would, WITH THEIR WIVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. . ."
Ether 15:33: "And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld THAT THE WORDS OF THE LORD HAD ALL BEEN FULFILLED. . ." And what were those words? That the Jaredites had all been destroyed.
Those verses should make it very clear that Jaredites did not remain. This does not mean politically. In other words, it seems that according to the prophets, NOT ONE SINGLE Jaredite, other than Coriantumr and Ether, survived the final conflict. In fact, the last words that Ether wrote tell are: "Whether the Lord will that I be translated, or that I suffer the will of the Lord in the flesh, it mattereth not, if it so be that I am saved in the kingdom of God. Amen." (Ether 15:34) Now, if there were still people in the land, survivors, or remnants hiding because they were peaceful, etc., why didn't Ether continue his work of preaching repentance? If he did, we don't know of any of it.
But is this the correct interpretation of "utter"? Let's see about some other places in the Book of Mormon where it's used:
It is prophesied to the people of Ammonihah:
Alma 9:12: ". . .But behold, this is not all--he has commanded you to repent, or he will UTTERLY destroy you from off the face of the earth. . .
Alma 9:18: . . .if ye persist in your wickedness that your days shall not be prolonged in the land, for the Lamanites shall be sent upon you; and if ye repent not they shall come in a time when you know not, and ye shall be visited with UTTER destruction. . .
Alma 10:18: . . .pull down the wrath of God upon your heads, even to the UTTER destruction of this people.
Alma 10:22: . . .ye would even now be visited with UTTER destruction. . ."
Now, we know that the unrepentant people of Ammonihah were UTTERLY destroyed--every single one of them:
Alma 16:2: ". . .the armies of the Lamanites had come in upon the wilderness side, into the borders of the land, even into the city of Ammonihah, and began to slay the people and destroy the city.
Alma 16:3: . . .[the Lamanites] HAD DESTROYED THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE CITY OF AMMONIHAH, and also some around the borders of Noah, and taken others captive into the wilderness.
Alma 16:9: And thus ended the eleventh year of the judges, the Lamanites having been driven out of the land, and the PEOPLE OF AMMONIHAH WERE DESTROYED; yea, EVERY LIVING SOUL OF THE AMMONIHAHITES WAS DESTROYED, and also their great city, which they said God could not destroy, because of its greatness."
We see that the same interpretation holds--no survivors, no escapees, no hidden people on the fringe.
What about the Nephite's utter destruction? Is it the same?
Alma 45:10: ". . . this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall dwindle in unbelief.
Alma 45:11: . . .then shall they see wars [, etc.] even until the people of Nephi shall become EXTINCT--
Alma 45:14: But WHOSOEVER REMAINETH, AND IS NOT DESTROYED IN THAT GREAT AND DREADFUL DAY, SHALL BE NUMBERED AMONG THE LAMANITES, AND SHALL BECOME LIKE UNTO THEM, ALL, SAVE IT BE A FEW WHO SHALL BE CALLED THE DISCIPLES OF THE LORD; AND THEM SHALL THE LAMANITES PURSUE EVEN UNTIL THEY SHALL BECOME EXTINCT. . ."
Helaman 13:10: Yea, I will visit them in my fierce anger, and there shall be those of the fourth generation who shall live, of your enemies, to behold your UTTER destruction; . . . and those of the fourth generation shall visit your destruction.
Helaman 15:17: . . .saith the Lord, concerning the people of the Nephites: . . .I will UTTERLY destroy them. . .
Moroni 9:22: But behold, my son, I recommend thee unto God, and I trust in Christ that thou wilt be saved; and I pray unto God that he will spare thy life, to witness the return of his people unto him, or their UTTER DESTRUCTION; for I know that they MUST PERISH. . ..
Moroni 9:24: And if it so be that they PERISH, WE KNOW THAT MANY OF OUR BRETHREN HAVE DESERTED OVER UNTO THE LAMANITES, AND MANY MORE WILL ALSO DESERT OVER UNTO THEM. . ."
Yes, the Nephites were utterly destroyed, by definition as the faithful seed of Nephi. Here, the use of Nephite is different. One side of the conflict survived, and Nephites became Lamanites, and survived (though probably had little affect upon Lamanite society). With the Jaredites, however, both sides were destroyed, so there could be no deserters, from one side to the other.
What about other instances?
Helaman 6:37: "And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was UTTERLY destroyed from among the Lamanites."
In other words, NO robbers were left.
Another instance with the Gadianton robbers:
3 Nephi 2:13: And it came to pass that before this thirteenth year had passed away the Nephites were threatened with UTTER destruction because of this war, which had become exceedingly sore.
Can we summarize by saying that it meant every single Nephite? Yes, the Nephites were about to be wiped out, as per to the definition of religion, as noted above with the Lamanites.
Abinadi, prophesying of the people of King Noah, said:
Mosiah 12:8: "And it shall come to pass that except they repent I will UTTERLY destroy them from off the face of the earth; yet they shall leave a record behind them, and I will preserve them for other nations which shall possess the land; yea, even this will I do that I may discover the abominations of this people to other nations. And many things did Abinadi prophesy against this people."
Many died, then they suffered, and then they repented, so there was no fulfillment. Later, they joined with the Nephites and ceased to exist; however, I don't think this is the utter destruction the Lord was talking about for them.
What about the Lamanites?
"Yea, I say unto you, that in the latter times the promises of the Lord have been extended to our brethren, the Lamanites. . .; the Lord shall be merciful unto them" (Helaman 15:12).
"Therefore, saith the Lord: I will not UTTERLY destroy [the Lamanites]. . ." (Helaman 15:16).
Yes, the Lamanites dwindled/ lessened in number, by quite a bit; but they remained.
Also, look at what was happening with the Jaredites during the final stage of destruction:
"Now the name of the brother of Lib was called Shiz. And it came to pass that Shiz pursued after Coriantumr, and he did overthrow many cities, and he did slay both women and children, and he did burn the cities."
"And there went a fear of Shiz throughout all the land; yea, a cry went forth throughout the land--Who can stand before the army of Shiz? Behold, he sweepeth the earth before him!"
"And it came to pass that the people began to flock together in armies, throughout all the face of the land."
"And they were divided; and a part of them fled to the army of Shiz, and a part of them fled to the army of Coriantumr" (Ether 14:17-20).
. . .
"And so terrible was the destruction among the armies of Shiz that the people began to be frightened, and began to flee before the armies of Coriantumr; and they fled to the land of Corihor, and SWEPT OFF THE INHABITANTS BEFORE THEM, ALL THEM THAT WOULD NOT JOIN THEM" (Ether 14:27).
. . .
"And it came to pass that they did gather TOGETHER ALL THE PEOPLE upon ALL THE FACE OF THE LAND, who had not been slain, SAVE IT WAS ETHER."
"And it came to pass that Ether did behold all the doings of the people; and he beheld that the people who were for Coriantumr were gathered together to the army of Coriantumr; and the people who were for Shiz were gathered together to the army of Shiz."
"Wherefore, they were for the space of FOUR YEARS GATHERING TOGETHER THE PEOPLE, that they might get ALL WHO WERE UPON THE FACE OF THE LAND, and that they might receive ALL THE STRENGTH WHICH IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD RECEIVE."
"And it came to pass that when they were ALL GATHERED TOGETHER, EVERY ONE to the army which he would, with their WIVES AND THEIR CHILDREN--BOTH MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN. . ."
(Ether 15:12-15)
Everyone and every means of survival was being destroyed or gathered; and, there's no third part--it was either Shiz or Coraintumr. Unless the Lord led a small righteous part out of the land. . . but then, that would cut the Jaredites from the rest of the Book of Mormon, too, so this theory of surviving Jaredites just doesn't really seem to fit.
Does it talk anywhere else in the Book of Mormon about the Jaredite destruction?
We read that:
"And they gave an account of one CORIANTUMR, and THE SLAIN OF HIS PEOPLE. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons" (Omni 1:21).
One might say, well, "the slain of his people" could mean just that--just his people, and not all the others. Yes, I agree. But then, in the next verse, it says:
"It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And HIS FIRST PARENTS came out from the tower, at the time the Lord CONFOUNDED THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE; and the severity of the Lord fell UPON THEM according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward" (Omni 1:22).
It seems to mean that "[Coriantumr's] first parents" and theirs were all destroyed, not just Coriantumr's people.
We also know the situation with the Gadianton Robbers: join, or be completely destroyed. Anyone left outside the walls in the area would have not lasted long, no matter how neutral or small they wanted to remain or be.
No groups could remain neutral here--it was for one side or the other, or be killed. Remaining physically neutral is not a one-sided, personal decision! As many sides have said in many conflicts, "if you're not for us, you're against us--" which means you join us or we kill you. I doubt that ANY Jaredites had the choice of "simply refus[ing] to participate in the suicidal madness" and "staying home and minding their meek business in this or that corner of the land." (And goodness, if any were to have remained as proposed, they would surely have had to leave or run away, not just stay at home.)
--------------------
Lehi's final prophecy to his children foreshadowed this happening. He said, It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance . . . . But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord, . . . I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them. Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them. (2 Nephi 1:8-12)
-----------------
**** No matter how true this might or might not be, I still fail to find a relation to "[foreshadowing] this happening."
-----------------
How much time can we suppose elapsed between the time when Lehi's descendants "dwindle[d] in unbelief" and when the Lord brought "other nations unto them"? How distant were those "other nations" at the time Lehi spoke? Latter-day Saints generally have supposed that the "other nations" were the Gentile (Christian) nations of Europe who began to reach the New World only 500 years ago. To believe so requires limited imagination.
------------------
**** Maybe a reason that many Latter-day Saints think that way is because of scriptures like Mormon 5:19: "And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they might have received in the land, for the Gentiles who shall possess the land." Or perhaps 3 Nephi 16:4, which says "And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall write shall be kept and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles, that through the fulness of the Gentiles, the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the face of the earth because of their unbelief, may be brought in, or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer."
Beware the suppositions of man.
------------------
As for the Lamanites, they dwindled in unbelief within a few years. Alma said that "the Lamanites have been cut off from his presence, from the beginning of their transgressions in the land" (Alma 9:14). How then could Lehi's prophecy about "other nations" being brought in have been kept long in abeyance after that?
----------------
**** And what about the interpretation of "dwindle in unbelief"? Who would like to show that "dwindle/dwindled in unbelief" is equivalent to "cut off"?
****That wasn't his prophecy. This was: 2 Nephi 1:9: "Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
2 Nephi 1:10: But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord--having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise--behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
2 Nephi 1:11: Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.
2 Nephi 1:12: Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them; wherefore, my sons, I would that ye would remember; yea, I would that ye would hearken unto my words."
As the Lamanites remained in power until at least the destruction of the Nephites, this couldn't include people before that time.
Also, it was the Nephites who dwindled in unbelief, as the Lamanites taught their children to not believe--resulting in a big immediate cutting off, not a dwindling.
Lehi probably knew that Laman and Lemuel would rebel and teach their children to rebel, so it wouldn't mean them at the very beginning.
--------------
Ash:
Lehi’s sermon in 2 Nephi 1:6–11 seems to preclude non-Lehite inhabitants in the “land of promise.” Traditional, and perhaps erroneous, interpretations arise when we read Lehi’s remarks that “shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord” (v. 6), and that the promised land “should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance” (v. 8). Lehi told his children that if they remained righteous that they would prosper and “be kept from all other nations” so that they would “possess” the land “unto themselves” (v. 9).
On the surface, this seems to support the traditional interpretation that the Lehites were the primary progenitors for the American Indians. A closer look at 2 Nephi, however, is helpful. This chapter takes place some time shortly after the Lehites arrived in the New World (before Nephi and his brothers separated and before the first use of the terms Nephite and Lamanite). Lehi, who is nearing death, spoke to his posterity with counsel and warning. He said that the land of promise was offered by the Lord in covenant to Lehi, his children, and “all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord” (v. 5, emphasis added) and that none would come to the land except those brought by the hand of the Lord (and we can certainly presume that the Lord brought others into the promised land prior to, during, and after Lehi’s arrival).
------------------
****On what foundation we can "presume", I have no idea. Perhaps the author would like to elaborate and enlighten.
------------------
Such statements do not preclude the possibility that others already lived in the land of promise. The Lord promised that other nations—which up till this point had referred to Old World nations—would not know about and overrun their land.
------------------
****I'm sorry, I don't understand how the author understands that the Lord meant Old World nations. Perhaps the author would like to elaborate here, too.
------------------
(Imagine the changes that may have happened had the New World been common knowledge among European and Old World nations of Lehi’s day!)
------------------
It doesn't, but that's not what the author's trying to prove--he's trying to prove that they did exist.
------------------
The promise to keep the land secure has a caveat; as long as those brought from Jerusalem (Lehi and his family) remain righteous, they would prosper and be “kept from other nations” (v. 9). Lehi warned, however, that the time would come that they would “dwindle in unbelief” (v. 10) after which the Lord would allow “other nations” to take their possessions and cause them to be “scattered and smitten” (v. 11). While traditional LDS thought has supposed that this refers to the coming of the Spaniards (which may possibly account for a future and dual fulfillment of Lehi’s prophecy), Lehi immediately launched into an exhortation to his children telling them that as “one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodshed” (v. 12). This suggests that Lehi suspected the coming of “other nations” in the near future. The appearance of the “other nations” is directly linked to not only the wickedness of Lehi’s descendants, but also to a scattering and smiting of those who become wicked.
---------------
****Here we have a strong interpretation of scripture. Let's look at 2 Nephi 1:9 again:
"Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as THOSE WHOM THE LORD GOD SHALL BRING OUT OF THE LAND OF JERUSALEM shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever." To me this is not just Lehi and his family. We know, for example, about the "Mulekites".
****I also see no relationship or correlation between "one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodshed" and how "this suggests that Lehi suspected the coming of 'other nations' in the near future".
---------------
Shortly thereafter (chapter 5) we find that Laman and Lemuel were so unrighteous that they wanted to kill Nephi. It is at this point that Nephi and his followers (now called “Nephites”) separate themselves from his brothers and their followers (now called “Lamanites”). According to Lehi’s prophecy, when his children became unrighteous the Lord would allow “other nations” to smite them (2 Nephi 1:11). This wouldn’t be possible unless there were already others present, or others arrived immediately after Laman and Lemuel fell back into their unrighteous habits.
----------------
****2 Nephi 1:11 reads:
"Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten." And yet, there is nothing about the Lamanites fighting wars with anyone other than the Nephites, even after the destruction of the Nephites. Moroni says that:
"And behold, the Lamanites have hunted my people, the Nephites, down from city to city and from place to place, even until they are no more; and great has been their fall; yea, great and marvelous is the destruction of my people, the Nephites" (Mormon 8:7).
"And behold, it is the hand of the Lord which hath done it. And behold also, the Lamanites are at war one with another; and the whole face of this land is one continual round of murder and bloodshed; and no one knoweth the end of the war" (Mormon 8:8).
"And now, behold, I say no more concerning them, for there are none save it be the Lamanites and robbers that do exist upon the face of the land" (Mormon 8:9). Where are the others that were to smite the Lamanites, and scatter them, and take the lands of their possessions? Nowhere there!
----------------
And in fulfillment of Lehi’s prophesy, when Nephi departed he took away the Liahona, the plates of brass, and the sword of Laban (the “possessions” important to the Lehites). In time we read how the Lamanites were “scattered and smitten.” Several centuries later, we find Alma exhorting his people to righteousness and recounting the story of Nephi’s wayward brothers as an example of the consequences of wickedness (Alma 9:13-14) . Now the Nephites were becoming wicked and were at risk for the same fate. We see the prophecies of Lehi—the promises and curses (which would include the invasion of “others”)—as having already been (or continuing to be) fulfilled.
----------------
****Sorry! This is just plain false. We don't see anything in Alma 9, or elsewhere, about how the Lamanites are scattered and smitten, as the author says.
----------------
Accordingly, it seems that a possible scenario might be thus: When the Lehites arrived they would have found sparse communities of “others” (perhaps too small to be called “nations”) in their new land. The Lehites would have continued to peacefully coexist (perhaps even intermingling) with these “others,” pursuant to their righteousness. The wickedness of the Lamanites, however, might have brought aggressive “others” (“other nations”) into the Lehite colony who could have merged with the Lamanites and joined in their quest to destroy the Nephites (who may also have joined with peaceful “others”). When the Nephites separated from the Lamanites the promises and warnings of Lehi would have been realized (and like many prophecies in the Bible, may have seen multiple fulfillment).
----------------
****Here's a more probable scenario:
"But behold, when the time cometh that THEY SHALL DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, AFTER THEY HAVE RECEIVED SO GREAT BLESSINGS FROM THE HAND OF THE LORD--having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, KNOWING THE GREAT AND MARVELOUS WORKS OF THE LORD from the creation of the world; HAVING POWER GIVEN THEM TO DO ALL THINGS BY FAITH; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise--behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them" (2 Nephi 1:10).
"Yea, he will BRING OTHER NATIONS UNTO THEM, and HE WILL GIVE UNTO THEM POWER, and he will TAKE AWAY FROM THEM THE LANDS OF THEIR POSSESSIONS, and he will CAUSE THEM TO BE SCATTERED AND SMITTEN" (2 Nephi 1:11).
First of all, we see that the Lamanites, for a long time, don't fit the description given in verse 10; only the Nephites do. So, the author's interpretation is already off.
Secondly, we see that the Lamanites DO fit the description of other nations given power to "take away" Nephite lands and cause the Nephites "to be scattered and smitten"--in fact, this is the direct promise given to Nephi about the Lamanites (1 Nephi 2:23-24): "For behold, in that day that [the Lamanites] shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also."
"And if it so be that [the Lamanites] rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed (the Nephites), to stir them up in the ways of remembrance."
This is also the case of the nation of the Gadianton robbers, when it was a nation.
Third, we see that after the group dwindles after Christ's visit, the prophecy is fulfilled for the remaining seed, such as with Moron.
Could there have been others who participated also? Once more, the Book of Mormon doesn't show any did, continually defining the Lamanites and Nephites as seemingly not having outside groups. Though perhaps after Moroni, there were.
----------------
Roper:
Is there a distinction, for example, between "nations" and other social groups? Lehi would have been familiar with nations such as Babylon and Egypt that had well-organized armies capable of waging sophisticated warfare and extending their power over large distances. Lehi's prophecy could allow for smaller societies that did not yet merit the description "nations." For instance, Sorenson's model of Book of Mormon geography places the land of Nephi in highland Guatemala near the site of Kaminaljuyú. At the time Nephi and his people separated from Laman's followers to found their own settlement in the early sixth century B.C., archaeological evidence shows that that region had only scattered, sparsely populated villages.57 Also, to "possess this land unto themselves" does not necessarily mean to be the only inhabitants but can also mean--as it often does in Book of Mormon contexts--that a group has the ability to control and exercise authority over the land and its resources (see, for example, Mosiah 19:15; 23:29; 24:2; Alma 27:22, 26).58
----------------
****I can agree with this meaning of "possess".
----------------
Roper:
Significantly, however, even Lehi's statement about "other nations" is conditional. Lehi indicates that the promised protection from threatening nations would be removed when his children dwindled in unbelief. Sorenson has observed that the Lamanites, at least, dwindled in unbelief from the beginning.
---------------
****Did the Lamanites DWINDLE? See the part about "dwindling" above.
How possible is it that this "dwindling" refers to the Lamanites, from the beginning? The following verses in the Book of Mormon show how all the prophets, from Nephi to Moroni, interpreted this "DWINDLE" to mean from about 400 years after Christ, and on:
Nephi records:
"AND it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea."
"And it came to pass that I beheld multitudes gathered together to battle, one against the other; and I beheld wars, and rumors of wars, and great slaughters with the sword among my people."
"And it came to pass that I beheld many generations pass away, after the manner of wars and contentions in the land; and I beheld many cities, yea, even that I did not number them."
"And it came to pass that I saw a mist of darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were broken up; and I saw many cities that they were sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof" (1 Nephi 12:1-4)
. . .
"And while the angel spake these words, I beheld and saw that the seed of my brethren did contend against my seed, according to the word of the angel; and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld that the seed of my brethren did overpower the people of my seed."
"And it came to pass that I beheld, and saw the people of the seed of my brethren that they had overcome my seed; and they went forth in multitudes upon the face of the land."
"And I saw them gathered together in multitudes; and I saw wars and rumors of wars among them; and in wars and rumors of wars I saw many generations pass away."
"And the angel said unto me: Behold these shall DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF."
"And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations" (1 Nephi 12:19-23).
. . .
1 Nephi 13:35
"For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb."
. . .
1 Nephi 15:13
"And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed--"
. . .
1 Nephi 15:18
Wherefore, our father hath not spoken of our seed alone, but also of all the house of Israel, pointing to the covenant which should be fulfilled in the latter days; which covenant the Lord made to our father Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
. . .
2 Nephi 26:15
After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF shall not be forgotten.
. . .
2 Nephi 26:17
For thus saith the Lord God: They shall write the things which shall be done among them, and they shall be written and sealed up in a book, and those who have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF shall not have them, for they seek to destroy the things of God.
. . .
2 Nephi 26:19
And it shall come to pass, that those who have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF shall be smitten by the hand of the Gentiles.
Alma the younger says this:
"And these are the words: Behold, I perceive that this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF."
"Yea, and then shall they see wars and pestilences, yea, famines and bloodshed, even until the people of Nephi shall become extinct--"
"Yea, and this because they shall DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF and fall into the works of darkness, and lasciviousness, and all manner of iniquities; yea, I say unto you, that because they shall sin against so great light and knowledge, yea, I say unto you, that from that day, even the fourth generation shall not all pass away before this great iniquity shall come" (Alma 45:10-12).
Samuel the Lamanite says:
"Yea, even if they should DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF the Lord shall prolong their days, until the time shall come which hath been spoken of by our fathers, and also by the prophet Zenos, and many other prophets, concerning the restoration of our brethren, the Lamanites, again to the knowledge of the truth--"
"Yea, I say unto you, that in the latter times the promises of the Lord have been extended to our brethren, the Lamanites; and notwithstanding the many afflictions which they shall have, and notwithstanding they shall be driven to and fro upon the face of the earth, and be hunted, and shall be smitten and scattered abroad, having no place for refuge, the Lord shall be merciful unto them" (Helaman 15:11-12).
. . .
Helaman 15:15
"For behold, had the mighty works been shown unto them which have been shown unto you, yea, unto them who have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF because of the traditions of their fathers, ye can see of yourselves that they never would again have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF" (Helaman 15:15).
Jesus says:
3 Nephi 21:5
Therefore, when these works and the works which shall be wrought among you hereafter shall come forth from the Gentiles, unto your seed which shall DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF because of iniquity;
Mormon also says:
4 Nephi 1:34
Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite upon the people of Jesus; but the people of Jesus did not smite again. And thus they did DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF and wickedness, from year to year, even until two hundred and thirty years had passed away.
4 Nephi 1:38
And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites; and they did not DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, but they did wilfully rebel against the gospel of Christ; and they did teach their children that they should not believe, even as their fathers, from the beginning, did DWINDLE.
Mormon 9:35
And these things are written that we may rid our garments of the blood of our brethren, who have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF.
Ether 4:3
And now, after that, they have all DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF; and there is none save it be the Lamanites, and they have rejected the gospel of Christ; therefore I am commanded that I should hide them up again in the earth.
Mormon says:
Alma 50:22
And those who were faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord were delivered at all times, whilst thousands of their wicked brethren have been consigned to bondage, or to perish by the sword, or to DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, and mingle with the Lamanites.
Mosiah 10:17
And thus they have taught their children that they should hate them, and that they should murder them, and that they should rob and plunder them, and do all they could to destroy them; therefore they have an eternal hatred towards the children of Nephi.
Mosiah 1:5
I say unto you, my sons, were it not for these things, which have been kept and preserved by the hand of God, that we might read and understand of his mysteries, and have his commandments always before our eyes, that even our fathers would have DWINDLED IN UNBELIEF, and we should have been like unto our brethren, the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things, or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct.
---------------
Sorenson:
Furthermore, the early Nephites generally did the same thing within a few centuries. Their wickedness and apostasy culminated in the escape of Mosiah and his group from the land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla (see Omni 1:13-14). And if the Lord somehow did not at those times bring in "other nations," then surely he would have done so after Cumorah, 1100 years prior to Columbus. Even if there were no massive armed invasions of strange groups to be reported, we need not be surprised if relatively small groups of strange peoples who were neither so numerous nor so organized as to be rivals for control of the land could have been scattered or infiltrated among both Nephites and Lamanites without their constituting the "other nations" in the threatening sense of Lehi's prophecy. Thus in the terms of Lehi's prophecy, "others" could and probably even should have been close at hand and available for the Lord to use as instruments against the straying covenant peoples any time after the arrival of Nephi's boat.59
----------------
****I don't feel very assured when I hear a mortal explain what the Lord "surely" "would have done", and how other nations "could and probably even should" have been there to fulfill the prophecies according to a personal interpretation. I am more comfortable with something like "a definite possibility and even probability is that after Cumorah and before Columbus, "others" were brought into the land".
----------------
Roper:
Scriptural Support for the Presence of Others
Prophecies about the Scattering
The scriptural evidence against the presence of others, then, is sparse and unimpressive. The scriptural evidence for the presence of others, however, is abundant. For instance, prophecies from the Old Testament would have led Lehi's people to expect to be placed in a new land in the midst of other people. The prophets of ancient Israel had foretold that the tribes of Israel would be "scatter[ed] . . . among all people" (Deuteronomy 28:64) and "removed to all the kingdoms of the earth" (Jeremiah 29:18) and that they would become "wanderers among the nations" (Hosea 9:17). Further, Moses informed them, "The Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the Lord shall lead you" (Deuteronomy 4:27). These prophecies make plain that the whole house of Israel was subject to being scattered among non-Israelite peoples who would be more numerous than they.60 Lehi taught his children that they should consider themselves to be a part of this scattering: "Yea, even my father spake much concerning the Gentiles, and also concerning the house of Israel, that they should be compared like unto an olive-tree, whose branches should be broken off and should be scattered upon all the face of the earth. Wherefore, he said it must needs be that we should be led with one accord into the land of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered" (1 Nephi 10:12-13).
The allegory of the olive tree, as recounted by Jacob, spells their fate out even more plainly. Branches broken off the tame tree, which represents historical Israel (Jacob 5:3), are to be grafted onto the roots of wild trees, meaning non-Israelite groups. In other words, there is to be a demographic union between two groups, with "young and tender branches" from the original tree, Israel, being grafted onto wild rootstock in various parts of the vineyard or the earth (Jacob 5:8; see also 14). Jacob 5:25 and 43 clearly identify Lehi's people as such a broken-off branch. That branch is to be planted in the choicest spot of the vineyard. In that prime location, the Lord has already cut down "that which cumbered this spot of ground" (Jacob 5:44)--clearly a reference to the destruction of the Jaredites.61 In addition, the statement that one part of the new hybrid tree "brought forth good fruit," while the other portion "brought forth wild fruit," is an obvious reference to the Nephites and Lamanites respectively (Jacob 5:45).
So the Lehite "tree" of the allegory consists of a population geographically "transplanted" from the original Israelite promised land and "grafted" onto a wild root--or joined with non-Israelite people. Note that the Lord considers the new root to be "good" despite its being wild (Jacob 5:48). This allegorical description requires that a non-Israelite root--other peoples, in terms of this discussion--already be present on the scene where the "young and tender branch," Lehi's group, would be merged with them.
-----------------
****A strong point. Of course, this depends on how far you want to carry the literalness of the allegory. For example, notice in the allegory that the branches are both the gentiles and the Israelites, not that the roots are gentiles and the branches are Israelites. The emphasis is on the branches, yet how can you have branches without roots? What are the roots?
-----------------
Roper:
Open-ended Promises concerning the Land
Book of Mormon prophets describe for latter-day readers the responsibilities that rest upon those who inherit the land of promise. But these conditions did not begin with Lehi's family or even with the Jaredites; this land has been one of promise from its beginning (Ether 13:2).62 Those conditions specify that the people and nations who inhabit the land are to be free from bondage, captivity, and "all other nations under heaven" if they will serve God (Ether 2:12). The reverse is also implicit in Moroni's statement: those who do not serve God have no promised protection and may expect to be subjected to bondage, captivity, and affliction by other nations who will come to the land and exercise God's judgment upon them. Some people, then, are brought to the land for their righteousness, and others are brought to scourge the inhabitants. Moroni also states that unrighteous nations or people may be swept off the face of the land, but "it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off" (Ether 2:10), suggesting that those peoples who do not reach a "fulness of iniquity" may yet remain in the land.
"And he raiseth up a righteous nation, and destroyeth the nations of the wicked. And he leadeth away the righteous into precious lands, and the wicked he destroyeth, and curseth the land unto them for their sakes" (1 Nephi 17:37-38). Nephi's statement in the context of his own family's journey to a New World land of promise suggests that their experience is not unique but indicative of the activities of other groups. Upon his family's arrival, Lehi explained the nature of the covenant by which they would inherit the land. The Lord had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, "but, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord?" (2 Nephi 1:5). We know that the Mulekites were, like the Lehites, led out of the land of Jerusalem "by the hand of the Lord" (Omni 1:16). Lehi's reference to "other countries" suggests countries other than the land of Jerusalem. Modern readers may correctly include in that category gentile peoples who migrated to this hemisphere during historic times, yet Lehi does not limit the application to post-Columbian gentile groups. Their identity is left open and unspecified.
Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever. (2 Nephi 1:7)
Lehi's words parallel similar promises in both the Book of Mormon and latter-day revelation:
Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe. (Alma 45:16)
And thus the Lord did pour out his blessings upon this land, which was choice above all other lands; and he commanded that whoso should possess the land should possess it unto the Lord, or they should be destroyed when they were ripened in iniquity; for upon such, saith the Lord: I will pour out the fulness of my wrath. (Ether 9:20)
And I said unto them, that it should be granted unto them according to their faith in their prayers; yea, and this was their faith--that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions. Now, this is not all--their faith in their prayers was that this gospel should be made known also, if it were possible that other nations should possess this land; and thus they did leave a blessing upon this land in their prayers, that whosoever should believe in this gospel in this land might have eternal life; yea, that it might be free unto all of whatsoever nation, kindred, tongue, or people they may be. (D&C 10:47-52)
In both the Book of Mormon and modern-day scripture, the language of the scriptural promises concerning the land is open-ended. It refers to "whoso should possess the land" (Ether 2:8), "whatsoever nation" (Ether 2:9, 12), "he that doth possess it" (Ether 2:10), "all men . . . who dwell upon the face thereof" (Ether 13:2), "whosoever should believe in this gospel in this land" (D&C 10:50), "all of whatsoever nation, kindred, tongue, or people they may be" (D&C 10:51). The covenant conditions under which blessings may be inherited are explained, while the identification of who may inherit them is left unspecified in terms of both identification and time. Whoever they are, whenever they come, whatever their origins, the Book of Mormon makes clear that "this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring" (2 Nephi 1:7).
------------------
****Yes, but these things should be interpreted according to the limits given by the Book of Mormon, and also remember that this openness does in no way prove others coexisting with and integrating with the Lehites at all.
------------------
Roper:
Significantly, at this point in the text Nephi introduces the term people of Nephi for the first time in reference to his followers (2 Nephi 5:9), a term that may be suggestive of a larger society including more than his immediate family.
It is also at this point that the term Lamanite first appears. Nephi explains that he made preparations to defend his people "lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people" (2 Nephi 5:14). As demographer James Smith observes, "One reading of the latter phrase is that 'Lamanites' is a new name for the family and followers of Laman, Nephi's brother-enemy from whom Nephi fled. Another possible reading is that some people not previously called 'Lamanites' were now so called, presumably because of Laman's affiliation with them."63
---------------
****I'm not sure what the great emphasis in many writers on talking about "Nephite", "Lamanite", "people of Nephi", etc. is. Possible, yes, yet it would be hard to fit in with the Book of Mormon text. Another much easier, clearer, and more sensible possibility is that after the split they realized they were different peoples and named the groups. Note also that there is a failure to mention any other group by any name.
---------------
Roper:
After explaining how he and his people separated themselves from Laman, Lemuel, the sons of Ishmael, and their people and having told how the people of Nephi became established in the land, Nephi quotes a prophecy of the Lord. "And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done" (2 Nephi 5:23). This prophecy anticipates future mixing and intermarriage with the Lamanites, but the immediacy of Nephi's personal observation that "the Lord spake it, and it was done" suggests that the process was already underway at the time Nephi left or very shortly after the separation. That is, unidentified people had, at this early period, already joined with the Lamanites in their opposition to Nephi and his people and had become like them, and Nephi saw this event as a fulfillment of the Lord's prophecy.
Since Nephite dissensions are not explicitly mentioned until several generations later,64 Nephi's statement about unidentified peoples intermarrying with the Lamanites seems to indicate the presence of other non-Lehite peoples who had joined or were joining the Lamanites.
-----------------
****I believe this to be an incorrect interpretation of the scripture. "And the Lord spake it, and it was done" reads better as a separate verse--it refers to the whole curse, not to that particular portion of the curse. Also, remember that Alma 47:35 says, ". . .yea, he was acknowledged king throughout all the land, among all the people of the Lamanites, who were composed of the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites, and all the DISSENTERS OF THE NEPHITES, FROM THE REIGN OF NEPHI DOWN TO THE PRESENT TIME." There were dissenters from the very beginning; therefore, any need for others to fulfill this prophecy/ curse is clearly dismissed by this verse.
-----------------
Roper:
In light of the possibility that additional non-Lehite peoples had united with both the Nephites and the Lamanites, the teachings of Nephi and Jacob relating to Isaiah take on greater significance. After explaining that "we had already had wars and contentions with" the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:34), Nephi inserts a lengthy sermon delivered by his brother Jacob (2 Nephi 6-10). Jacob indicates that he has previously spoken about "many things" (2 Nephi 6:2) but that Nephi now wants him to preach from Isaiah. In fact, Jacob says that Nephi had even selected the scriptural passages he was to discuss: prophecies of Isaiah that concerned the relationship between scattered Israel and the Gentiles (2 Nephi 6:4). Further, Jacob asks his people to liken these passages from Isaiah to their present situation (2 Nephi 6:5) and suggests that the application of these teachings concerns "things which are" as well as things "which are to come" (2 Nephi 6:4). As Latter-day Saints, we quite appropriately focus on the latter, but what was the context that made likening Isaiah's words to themselves meaningful to the Nephites?
Jacob prophesies that in the latter days some Jews will reject the Messiah and be destroyed, while others will believe and be saved (2 Nephi 6:14-15). Jacob also interprets Isaiah as referring to two distinct groups of Gentiles: those who nourish and unite with Israel (2 Nephi 6:12; 10:18-19), and those who fight against Zion (2 Nephi 6:13; 10:16). In the latter days, both groups of Gentiles will play an active role in the drama of Israel's gathering and redemption. "Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God" (2 Nephi 10:16). Certainly, Jacob's sermon looks to the future, but I am persuaded that in likening Jacob's teachings to themselves, Nephite contemporary listeners would have drawn the obvious parallel with their own situation. As a branch of scattered Israel in a new land of promise, they sought to establish Zion but were opposed, hated, and persecuted by their former brethren. Even when Jacob applies these prophecies to the latter days, his words have immediate relevance to his contemporary listeners, who would likely have seen their Lamanite persecutors as the "Jews" of Jacob's prophecy and the "Gentiles" as those non-Lehite peoples who had joined with the Lamanites against the people of Nephi.
--------------
****More than likely, they were thinking of themselves as Israelites and the Lamanites ("both Jew and Gentile") as those who "shall perish" for fighting against them ("fighteth against Zion").
--------------
Roper:
However, in his application of Isaiah to the Lehites, Jacob explains that not all Gentiles would oppose Zion and that some would be joint heirs with the people of Lehi in the blessings of the land: "But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land" (2 Nephi 10:10). How would the Gentiles in the land be blessed? By being numbered among the children of Lehi.
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, thus saith our God: I will afflict thy seed by the hand of the Gentiles; nevertheless, I will soften the hearts of the Gentiles, that they shall be like unto a father to them; wherefore, the Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel. Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among thy seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God. (2 Nephi 10:18-19)
The Lord's promise, delivered to the people of Nephi by Jacob, is a perpetual one, having application from their own time forward.
-----------------
****So everyone living in the Americas will be Lehi's seed? I don't think that's what the verses mean, but that is what I think is being said. I don't see a necessary connection between "blessed and numbered among the house of Israel" and "them who shall be numbered among thy seed".
-----------------
Roper:
In the context of its time, Jacob's sermon can be read as addressing the immediate question of how Lehite Israel was to relate to and interact with non-Lehite peoples in the promised land.65 The answer was that they might, if they so chose, join with the people of God in seeking to build up Zion as joint inheritors of the land. Once they did so, they too became Israel and were numbered with Lehi's seed. Some have wondered why, if other people were present in the land during Book of Mormon times, they were not mentioned more frequently in the record.
--------------
****I would go for "at least once" instead of "more frequently", as the latter implies that they are mentioned--yet I haven't seen that they are.
--------------
Roper:
The precedent of making no distinction between Lehi's descendants and converts from the rest of the population, introduced by the Nephites' first priest, would have been foundational to the unity of Nephite society, would have influenced the words of later Nephite prophets, and may have set the additional precedent of viewing all peoples in the land in polar terms, such as Zion/ Babylon or Nephite/ Lamanite. Previous cultural identity would have been swallowed up in this polarized frame of reference.
-----------------
****Yet it isn't, with the examples given in the Book of Mormon. We have record of the joining of the Mulekites, and of the conversion and joining of the people of Ammon, and other Lamanites later on; and even many of these authors in Sorenson et.al. make it a point to try to prove that many of these groups remained separate and distinct, even many years after combining with the Lamanites. Seems wishy-washy to me.
And what influence do you see that this had on the "words of later Nephite prophets"?
-----------------
Roper:
An example of this process can be seen in the case of Nephi's righteous brother Sam. When Lehi blesses Sam, he promises, "Blessed art thou, and thy seed; for thou shalt inherit the land like unto thy brother Nephi. And thy seed shall be numbered with his seed; and thou shalt be even like unto thy brother, and thy seed like unto his seed; and thou shalt be blessed in all thy days" (2 Nephi 4:11). Lehi blesses all his children, but only Sam is promised that his seed will be numbered with Nephi's. Interestingly, when Lehite tribal designations are mentioned, there is no tribe of Sam (Jacob 1:13; 4 Nephi 1:35-38). Why? Apparently because when one is numbered with a people, one takes upon oneself the name and identity of that people. Similarly, Gentiles, once numbered with Israel or Lehi, are thereafter identified with their covenant fathers without respect to biological origin. From then on, they too are simply Israel.
-----------------
****And Zoram is too, though he isn't quite Lehi's seed--then, of course, by the covenant he is, right? So, were Jacob and Joseph numbered with Nephi?
And yet, throughout the Book of Mormon, we read of many different "-ites". Why were all the sons of Ishmael lumped together?
-----------------
Roper:
Nephi's emphasis on the universal nature of God's love is even more meaningful if written and taught to a people grappling with issues of ethnic and social diversity. "And he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (2 Nephi 26:33). Nephites would understand Jews to be those who came out from Jerusalem, yet the additional reference to Gentiles and heathen would only make sense to a Nephite if there were others in the land.
------------------
****And what about "black and white, bond and free"? Would that also "only" make sense to the Nephites if "there were others in the land"? So there were also blacks there, right?
------------------
Roper:
Likening Isaiah unto the Nephites
If there were others in the land, it would also help explain why many of Nephi's people had difficulty understanding Isaiah, although not all of them did (2 Nephi 25:1-6). Converts who had never lived in the ancient Near East would have lacked the historical and cultural background that made the words of Isaiah "plain" to Nephi.
-----------------
****True, it would--but not just for converts.
Just Isaiah makes understanding Isaiah difficult!
Nephi says that it was in particular not knowing "concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews" (2 Nephi 25:1) that made it difficult, though surely not knowing the background would make it difficult, also. At the least, Nephi's, Sam's, and Zoram's children; along with Jacob and Joseph; and maybe others, had never even seen Jerusalem, and Nephi didn't teach them the things of the Jews (2 Nephi 25:6). So, while converts would have had problems understanding, so would anyone else in this circumstance. And why must those "others" living in the land be converts? If they were branches of the house of Israel, and they believed the words of Nephi, wouldn't it be more likely that any "others" (this is a very hypothetical situation for me, yet I must ask it) were already believers, not "converts"?
-----------------
Roper:
It is also apparent that some Isaiah passages cited by Nephite prophets would make better sense to a Nephite if there were others in the land.
----------------
****Or, it would make sense if they knew (as they had already been told) that strangers would sometime join their posterity.
----------------
Roper:
Here we will mention just three.
Strangers join the house of Israel. "For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land; and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob" (2 Nephi 24:1). Such prophecies may quite properly be applied to latter-day readers of the Book of Mormon as we liken the scriptures to ourselves, but they need not refer to us exclusively. How would the Nephites have likened this scripture to their own situation, as their prophets invited them to do? They would no doubt recognize the great mercy of the Lord in bringing them out from Jerusalem and saving them from destruction, and they would also see the Lord's hand in setting them in a new land of promise where they could establish Zion. Significantly, this prophecy would also suggest to the ancient audience that there were "strangers" in the land who had joined or would join with them in accepting the teachings of Nephi and could be numbered with the house of Jacob.
Temples and people. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (2 Nephi 12:2-3, quoting Isaiah 2:2-3). While there are several ways of reading this passage, the Nephites would likely have thought about their own temple, recently constructed at the direction of Nephi "after the manner of the temple of Solomon" (2 Nephi 5:16). This was the temple at which Jacob taught (Jacob 1:17; 2:11) and likely the one at which Nephi's own teachings to his people and his quotations of Isaiah were presented. Isaiah's reference to "many people" coming up to be taught would evoke the idea of people joining the Nephites and accepting their traditions and beliefs.
A confederacy against Zion. Nephi cites Isaiah's prophecy concerning the alliance of Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, against Ahaz, king of Judah (2 Nephi 17-22, quoting Isaiah 7-12). Ephraim, Judah's brother-tribe, has allied itself with a non-Isaelite nation (Syria), and they seek to depose Ahaz and replace him with someone of their choosing (2 Nephi 17:1-6, quoting Isaiah 7:1-6). Responding to the crisis and the fears of the king and the people of Judah, Isaiah prophesies that the conspiracy of their enemies "shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass" (2 Nephi 17:7, quoting Isaiah 7:7) and urges Ahaz simply to have faith and be faithful (2 Nephi 17:9, quoting Isaiah 7:9). The application to Nephi's day is plain: In his ambition to gain power and assert his claims to rulership, Laman, leader of the brother-tribe of "the people who were now called Lamanites" (2 Nephi 5:14), has very possibly, like Pekah of Israel, acquired non-Israelite allies and made war on another ruler of Israelite descent, Nephi, and his people (2 Nephi 5:1-3, 14, 19, 34). Perhaps frightened by the superior numbers of their enemies, the people are counseled to trust in the Lord.
-------------
****It also makes sense that Nephi and Jacob don't choose a few verses from here, then from there, etc. They take big sections out--that doesn't mean that every little thing in each section is specifically and specially fitting to the Nephites at that current time.
-------------
Sorenson:
And if the Lord somehow did not at those times bring in "other nations," then surely he would have done so after Cumorah, 1100 years prior to Columbus. Even if there were no massive armed invasions of strange groups to be reported, we need not be surprised if relatively small groups of strange peoples who were neither so numerous nor so organized as to be rivals for control of the land could have been scattered or infiltrated among both Nephites and Lamanites without their constituting the "other nations" in the threatening sense of Lehi's prophecy. Thus in the terms of Lehi's prophecy, "others" could and probably even should have been close at hand and available for the Lord to use as instruments against the straying covenant peoples any time after the arrival of Nephi's boat. Archaeology, linguistics, and related areas of study have established beyond doubt that a variety of peoples inhabited virtually every place in the Western Hemisphere a long time ago (with the possible exception of limited regions which may have been more or less unpopulated for the period of a few generations at certain times). The presence of almost 1500 different languages belonging to dozens of major groupings which were found in the Americas when the Europeans arrived can be explained only by supposing that speakers of the ancestral tongues had been in America for thousands of years. The notion that "the Indians" constituted a single ethnic entity is a totally outdated one which neither scholars nor lay people can justifiably believe nowadays. Abundant facts are completely contrary to the idea. The most that is possible is that in some limited territory in a part of America Lehi's people and those who came with Mulek had their chance to establish their own niches where they could control their own fate. But they were not given thousands of years of isolation to play with. (The Latter-day Saint pioneers in Deseret were allowed only a single generation, from 1847 until the railroad came in 1869, to do the same. After that, competing economic, social, political, and ideological systems directly challenged them, and nearly swallowed them up.) It seems unavoidable that other peoples were in the land, somewhere, when Nephi's boat landed on the shore of the "west sea," and quite certainly some of them were survivors from the Jaredite people, as indicated in the book of Ether.
-----------------
****It doesn't seem right to put personal limitations on prophecies. Let's see, Joseph says a Moses will be raised up--and it takes 400 years. Isaiah says Jesus will be born--and that's maybe 700 years. Daniel speaks about the last days--over 2,000 years. Etc., etc. And Lehi's seed are still in the Americas--I don't see why we should set a time limit on his prophecies. There is no immediate cause-effect relationship requirement or limitation shown in this prophecy.
The explanations in this whole section are very imaginative.
Let's take another look at Lehi's prophecy, and other similar prophecies:
"Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as THOSE WHOM THE LORD GOD SHALL BRING OUT OF THE LAND OF JERUSALEM shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and THEY SHALL BE KEPT FROM ALL OTHER NATIONS, that THEY MAY POSSESS THIS LAND UNTO THEMSELVES. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be NONE TO MOLEST THEM, NOR TO TAKE AWAY THE LAND OF THEIR INHERITANCE; and THEY SHALL DWELL SAFELY FOREVER."
"But behold, when the time cometh that THEY shall DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord--having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise--behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them."
"Yea, he will BRING OTHER NATIONS UNTO THEM, and he will give unto them power, and HE WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THEM THE LANDS OF THEIR POSSESSIONS, and he will cause them to BE SCATTERED AND SMITTEN."
"Yea, AS ONE GENERATION PASSETH TO ANOTHER THERE SHALL BE BLOODSHEDS, and GREAT VISITATIONS among THEM; wherefore, my sons, I would that ye would remember; yea, I would that ye would hearken unto my words." (2 Nephi 1:9-12)
It is interesting to me that Lehi does not say "my seed", or "my seed (along with Zoram) and Ishmael's seed" here, but "those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem." It sounds like there might have been others. Of course, it could mean the Mulekites.
Also, Lehi does not say that others will or won't be in the land--just that his righteous seed will be "kept" to "possess the land unto themselves". If they keep the commandments, they will be able to keep control of their land in peace. In fact, it sounds like there will be others, but that any others will, at the least, be tolerant of them.
As a reminder, the mistaken explanation of the "dwindling" of the Lamanites has already been explained.
Before this record, we have that of Nephi:
"And it came to pass that I beheld, and saw the people of the seed of my brethren that they had overcome my seed; and they went forth in multitudes upon the face of the land" (1 Nephi 12:20).
"And I saw them gathered together in multitudes; and I saw WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS AMONG THEM; AND IN WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS I SAW MANY GENERATIONS PASS AWAY" (1 Nephi 12:21).
"And the angel said unto me: Behold THESE SHALL DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF" (1 Nephi 12:22).
. . .
"And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel--and THIS REMNANT OF WHOM I SPEAK IS THE SEED OF THY FATHER--wherefore, after I HAVE VISITED THEM IN JUDGMENT, and SMITTEN THEM BY THE HAND OF THE GENTILES . . ." (1 Nephi 13:34).
"For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and AFTER THY SEED SHALL BE DESTROYED, AND DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, AND ALSO THE SEED OF THY BRETHREN, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb" (1 Nephi 13:35).
Now, here is Alma's prophecy on this:
"And these are the words: Behold, I perceive that this very people, THE NEPHITES, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, IN FOUR HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE TIME THAT JESUS CHRIST SHALL MANIFEST HIMSELF UNTO THEM, SHALL DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF" (Alma 45:10).
"Yea, and then shall they see WARS AND PESTILENCES, YEA, FAMINES AND BLOODSHED, even until the people of Nephi shall become extinct--" (Alma 45:11)
"Yea, and this because they shall DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF and fall into the works of darkness, and lasciviousness, and all manner of iniquities; yea, I say unto you, that because they shall sin against so great light and knowledge, yea, I say unto you, that from that day, even the fourth generation shall not all pass away before this great iniquity shall come" (Alma 45:12).
Here's Mormon's commentary, in Helaman 6:34:
"And thus we see that the Nephites did BEGIN TO DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, and grow in wickedness and abominations, while the Lamanites began to grow exceedingly in the knowledge of their God; yea, they did begin to keep his statutes and commandments, and to walk in truth and uprightness before him."
Samuel the Lamanite, speaking about the Lamanites, says:
"Yea, even IF THEY SHOULD DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF the Lord shall prolong their days, until the time shall come which hath been spoken of by our fathers, and also by the prophet Zenos, and many other prophets, concerning the restoration of our brethren, the Lamanites, again to the knowledge of the truth--" (Helaman 15:11)
The Lord says:
"For it is wisdom in the Father that they (the Gentiles) should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth from them unto a remnant of your seed, that the covenant of the Father may be fulfilled which he hath covenanted with his people, O house of Israel;"
"Therefore, when these works and the works which shall be wrought among you hereafter shall come forth from the Gentiles, UNTO YOUR SEED WHICH SHALL DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF BECAUSE OF INIQUITY;" (3 Nephi 21:4-5)
Later, we read:
"Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite upon the people of Jesus; but the people of Jesus did not smite again. And thus they did DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF AND WICKEDNESS, from year to year, even until two hundred and thirty years had passed away" (4 Nephi 1:34)
"And it came to pass that THEY WHO REJECTED THE GOSPEL WERE CALLED LAMANITES, AND LEMUELITES, AND ISHMAELITES; and THEY DID NOT DWINDLE IN UNBELIEF, BUT THEY DID WILFULLY REBEL AGAINST THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST; and they did teach their children that they should not believe, EVEN AS THEIR FATHERS, FROM THE BEGINNING, DID DWINDLE". (4 Nephi 1:38)
"And it was because of the wickedness and abomination of their fathers, EVEN AS IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING. And THEY WERE TAUGHT TO HATE THE CHILDREN OF GOD, EVEN AS THE LAMANITES WERE TAUGHT TO HATE THE CHILDREN OF NEPHI FROM THE BEGINNING" (4 Nephi 1:39).
I think it is clear that these prophecies are all talking about the same time--the destruction of the Nephites and the dwindling in unbelief of the Lamanites, about 400 years after Christ--not almost 600 years before Christ--a thousand-year difference.
It also makes the point that the Lamanites probably did not "dwindle in unbelief" at the beginning--Laman, Lemuel, et. al. actively taught their children to reject God and do evil.
Also, this prophecy seems to mean that these things relating to other peoples will happen after the sum remainder of both sides dwindle in unbelief, not just one side, or both sides to some differing degrees.
****It seems that everything that happened in the Book of Mormon, happened in a relatively small area; especially if it were mostly enclosed (by the sea on two sides, desolate wilderness, etc.); and, given the size of the American continents; it is not necessary that the peoples in the Book of Mormon ran into any other races or groups of people. There is one mention when Mosiah runs into the people of Zarahemla, who had also left the same area; the two might have both been near each other for over 300 years without knowing it.
The Book of Mormon says in Alma 43:13 that the “Lamanites. . .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.” There is no mention of any others.
Helaman 11:24 doesn't seem to differ much, either: "And it came to pass that in the eightieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, there were a certain number of the dissenters from the people of Nephi, who had some years before gone over unto the Lamanites, and taken upon themselves the name of Lamanites, and also a certain number who were real descendants of the Lamanites, being stirred up to anger by them, or by those dissenters, therefore they commenced a war with their brethren."
Alma 24:29, similarly: "Now, among those who joined the people of the Lord, there were none who were Amalekites or Amulonites, or who were of the order of Nehor, but they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel."
Alma 47:35 says, ". . .yea, he was acknowledged king throughout all the land, AMONG ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE LAMANITES, WHO WERE COMPOSED OF THE LAMANITES AND THE LEMUELITES AND THE ISHMAELITES, AND ALL THE DISSENTERS OF THE NEPHITES, FROM THE REIGN OF NEPHI DOWN TO THE PRESENT TIME."
Mormon 1:8: "And it came to pass in this year there began to be a war between the NEPHITES, WHO CONSISTED OF THE NEPHITES AND THE JACOBITES AND THE JOSEPHITES AND THE ZORAMITES; and this war was between the Nephites, and the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites.
Mormon 1:9: NOW THE LAMANITES AND THE LEMUELITES AND THE ISHMAELITES WERE CALLED LAMANITES, AND THE TWO PARTIES WERE NEPHITES AND LAMANITES." Not other parties, even towards the end of the whole history.
D&C, similarly.
Once again, the language is interesting--"surely he would have done so," "should have been close at hand," "the most that is possible," "unavoidable," "quite certainly," etc. Actually, I probably should have used the word "blasphemous" instead of "impolite," "as indicated."
"As indicated in the book of Ether"--where and how is that?
Very few prophecies are shown left unfulfilled in the Book of Mormon. Almost all are/ have been fulfilled, or pointed to a particular or further time. If there is one, I haven't found it yet (outside of Isaiah), though there might be. In fact, the Lord chasitizes Nephi for not having written the fulfilling of the prophecy of Samuel that many would arise from the grave and appear to others. The promise made to Lehi about obeying and prospering is quoted multiple times in the Book of Mormon. Why, then, is the only time connected to this other of Lehi's prophecy--based on a Lord's promise, and its conditions--related to the far future? If it was fulfilled any time earlier, why isn't it in this record, when Mormon writes many things that show that proving the words of the Lord through his prophets is one of its main purposes?
See, for example, the following verses from the Book of Mormon that contain the word "fulfilled", and which are specifically about God's words, prophets' words, and God's covenants being fulfilled: 1 Nephi 7:13, 15:18, 16:8, 17:4; 2 Nephi 3:14, 5:19-20, 9:17, 10:15, 25:7, 25:21, 24, 27, 30; Words of Mormon 1:4; Mosiah 20:21, 21:4; Alma 3:14, 5:57, 58; 7:11, 13:26, 25:15, 34:13, 37:17, 19, 24, 26, 45:9, 14; Helaman 11:8, 6:13-14; 3 Nephi 1:4- 6, 15, 25; 5:1, 14, 25; 9:16-17, 10:11, 12:18-19, 46; 15:4-6, 8; 16:17, 20:11-12, 46; 21:4, 23:10, 28:7, 29:1-2; Mormon 8:22, 33; Ether 12:3, 11; 15:3, 33; Moroni 10:31.
See also these verses that contain "words of the prophets" and are related to prophecies: 1 Nephi 2:13, 3:19, 2 Nephi 25:19, 26:8, Jacob 6:18, Mosiah 15:11, Helaman 16:13, 3 Nephi 1:16, 20; 5:2.
See also a search for "according to the/ his word(s)", which deals with the same topics of prophecies being fulfilled; you will find angels, the Lord, and the many prophets' names completing this phrase.
----------------