Others

“Others” in the Book of Mormon

From the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Message Board

Feb 11 2008, 07:49 PM

Post #6

Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Group: Pundit
Posts: 938
Joined: 14-October 04
Member No.: 1026

After literally decades of discussion I still find it puzzling that people can't recognize that ancients categorized things differently than we do, and we fundamentally misread ancient texts when we insist on understanding them in modern categories.

In 1 Mac 12:21, for example, the Jews claimed to have discovered that the Spartans were descendants of Abraham: "A document has been found stating that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers; both nations descended from Abraham." And we worry about that Nephites might have perceived the relation of "others" and Lamanites differently than we do?

2 Ne 1:5 clearly states that Nephites believed that "others" were in the land.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=c7168aaa55f91d268369c32c9778d9a6&showtopic=32758&view=findpost&p=1208363102

Brant Gardner

Feb 13 2008, 12:41 PM

Post #41

Separates Water & Dry Land

Group: Pundit
Posts: 1507
Joined: 28-November 03
From: Albuquerque, NM
Member No.: 60

QUOTE(Chris Smith @ Feb 13 2008, 12:23 PM)

Unless, of course, you can provide an example of a lengthy lineage history that completely omits mention of outside populations despite their obviously enormous influence.

I'm not sure that "obviously enourmous influence" fits any Book of Mormon people. That aside, however, we still have the problem of historical documents and how insiders treat outsiders. We have the Popol Vuh which seems to indicate that the Quiche arrived in an area where there was no one, but archaeology shows that to be incorrect. In the Bible, we have the story of the Israelites who do mention Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, but only in the context of particular stories (and particularly when they are defeated by them). Mention is not made of the tremendous cultural influence of those peoples on the Israelites.

Next we have the issue of naming. We have the names of various peoples in texts based upon when the writers called them, not what they called themselves. We know that Pul and Tiglath-Pilesar were the same person, but those names are hardly similar. In more modern times, we know that Peking and Beijing are the same city, but simply conforming to different transliterations. Without such understanding, would we know the difference?

If we only have the Nephite internal designations, and they refer to cities by names we don't recongize (and we don't know any from most of Book of Mormon times), then how do we know that they aren't mentioning other peoples? They would think they are. They mention named lands and cities (which is exactly what would be expected in that area of the world).

If they subsume all humanity into their own categories (remember Bill Hamblin's example of the "discovery" that Spartans were descended from Biblical peoples), then why does it surprise us that we see the same in the Book of Mormon.

The problem with this "challenge" is that it wants to have a modern "scientific" answer to a question that has been formed in the most unscientific and unhistoric manner possible. The premise of the challenge contradicts the very tools that would be used to provide the answer, and the answers given by those tools seem to be rejected out of hand. If you are going to ask historical questions, they you must understand the answers according to what history tells us of the ancient world, not what we presuppose it should have been like.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=32758&view=findpost&p=1208364317

Brant Gardner

Feb 13 2008, 12:41 PM

Post #41

Separates Water & Dry Land

Group: Pundit
Posts: 1507
Joined: 28-November 03
From: Albuquerque, NM
Member No.: 60

QUOTE(Chris Smith @ Feb 13 2008, 12:23 PM)

Unless, of course, you can provide an example of a lengthy lineage history that completely omits mention of outside populations despite their obviously enormous influence.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=32758&view=findpost&p=1208364317

Brant Gardner

Feb 13 2008, 02:08 PM

Post #50

Separates Water & Dry Land

Group: Pundit
Posts: 1507
Joined: 28-November 03
From: Albuquerque, NM
Member No.: 60

QUOTE(Chris Smith @ Feb 13 2008, 01:11 PM)

Even if a mini-temple is meant as the apologists have suggested (which seems highly unlikely, since Nephi's only caveat is about "precious things"), we're talking about a group of about 30 people accomplishing a lot, establishing a metallurgy industry and erecting monumental buildings while somehow managing to establish a community and hunt or plant or fish enough to sustain themselves. Already, I think, the outside help they would need to accomplish all this is enormous.

Let me see if I read this correctly, Chris. You are saying that what the text says happened very early on requires "outside help"? Is that different from "others?"

I also confess that I am cautious when any historical document claims that the writer's people were the source of all culture. That is really very typical, but not necessarily historical. When do we apply principles of history to the text in our interpretations?

QUOTE

No offense, Brant, but you can't be serious. Do you really think that an origins myth like the Popol Vuh can be compared to the Book of Mormon?

No offense, Christ, but do you seriously think there is no comparison? Both are documents proposing their own ethnogenesis. Both elevate their own people to the exclusion of others.

When is historical similarity not applicable as a means of determining how documents should be read?

QUOTE

There are actually a huge number of non-Israelite cultures mentioned in the Bible, including Edomites, Perrizites, Hittites, etc. We read about Solomon's marriage-alliance with the queen of Sheba, Israel's conquest of Canaan, the escape from Egypt, Abraham and Lot's adventures in Sodom, Abraham fighting alongside the four kings, Ruth the Moabitess joining up with Israel, Saul & David's wars with the Philistines-- heck, I could go on. One cannot read the Bible without running across a veritable morass of references to non-Israelite peoples.

You have missed the point. We recognize these peoples as being different because they happen to belong to a culture area that subsumed large tracts of land under a kingdom and used a kingdom identifier. Look more to the times when the entire kingdoms are referenced by the person of the king or their city. In those cases, you have a much more applicable case. The Book of Mormon talks about other people all of the time - but does so by the name of the king or the name of the city or land. That is historically appropriate in a lot of different areas, particularly Mesoamerica. The problem with the Book of Mormon is that without the corresponding evidence of how different those cities were, we assume that they were the same. That is an assumption that doesn't hold for historical texts.

QUOTE

In every case of which I'm aware, the text explicitly identifies lineages of the various peoples as Lehite, Mulekite, Jaredite. The different groups are also pretty uniformly referred to using filial language. Is there a a group in the BoM that's not assigned to one of the three major genealogies?

Never Lehite. Nephite and Lamanite, of course, but then that is the point. Lamanite is very clearly a political designation that came from the original lineage-based designation, but which because a categorical term for all others - see "gentile" or "barbarian."

QUOTE

The Hebrews clearly did not subsume all humanity into their own categories, as we can see from the list of foreign peoples I offered above.

Really, which of those people existed before the flood? What people did not descend from Noah in some way - or certainly Adam before him? The early Israelites even created a genealogy for other gods as part of their own version of a heavenly council with the 70 sons of God become the gods of all of the nations (with Yahweh ascendant, of course).

What part of the world didn't fit in to their view of history?

Now, if you are suggesting that they thought of certain peoples as friends or enemies, of course. If you are suggesting that they used certain labels to identify them, then I agree. The only difference with the Book of Mormon is that we don't have nation-labels but rather city-labels. However, that is actually historically accurate for Mesoamerica where kingdom designators would have been anachronistic (at least for that time period - perhaps debatable later).

QUOTE

The "discovery" of an ancient book that identifies the Spartans as descendants of Abraham is amusing but exceptional, and I doubt it ever caught on (especially with the Greeks!). It's not only unprecedented for Hebrews to go around declaring uncircumcised people groups part of the club, but it's also difficult to believe that said people groups just laid down their own national identities and traditions in order to play their specific roles in the Nephite lineage drama.

You seem to be missing the point. The Israelite world view required all people to descend from the same sources - whether they did or not. So - documents were discovered that promoted that assumption.

Very clearly, there was a cultural need to see everyone in certain terms, which is precisely the process that is being described for the Book of Mormon.

QUOTE

History is a double-edged sword, Brant.

It might be, if the examples of history didn't clearly tell us that the simplistic reading that many (including LDS readers, may I add) are trying to impose on the text simply doesn't fit with known history. If the text is ancient, then it must respond as an ancient text would, not according to modern assumptions of what a text should be. Unfortunately, questions such as that of the opening post place the questions firmly in the position of requiring an ahistorical reading of the text rather than reading it according to the ways other ancient texts were created.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=32758&view=findpost&p=1208364405

Brant Gardner

Feb 13 2008, 06:09 PM

Post #55

Separates Water & Dry Land

Group: Pundit
Posts: 1507
Joined: 28-November 03
From: Albuquerque, NM
Member No.: 60

QUOTE(maupayman @ Feb 13 2008, 05:10 PM)

1) Jacob 2:12 - This is after Nephi has died, Jacob is teaching the Nephites. This is after the promise in 2 Nephi 1:9 was, by your account, removed and they no longer had the promise to "possess the land unto themselves", referring to the promised land.

"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."

The fact that Jacob is still referring to the area they live, "this land", as the land of promise certainly implies that the promised land was not just the small area where they landed, before they supposedly mixed with the natives.

And yet this very verse is a strong indication that were lots of other communities around. The problem is that people are searching for gold and silver which "doth abound most plentifully." There are several reasons that this is problematic. First, unworked ore is just pretty (maybe). Second, if it is abundant and everyone has it, it isn't valuable - simple economics. In order to have value, it has to be worked so that it is something rare (not abundant) and it has to be traded to someone who doesn't have it. I'll trade you my necklace for yours doesn't make for much economic jealousy, which is the problem Jacob is denouncing.

As for the land, I still see this one as very limited. There is no way a small group of people (or even a small village) is going to wander all over the hemisphere looking for gold and silver. The clear implication is that it is close by - ergo a small land.

QUOTE

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

This is certainly the theme of the Nephites - in Nephi, later Zarahemla, and later Bountiful. They failed and were swept off the land.

QUOTE

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

The Nephites are eventually swept off after the "fulness of iniquity among the children of the land." This was a fulfilled promise.

QUOTE

11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

I see evidence that Nephites considered Teotihuacanos the destructive Gentiles. They came in to the land and the promis was that the wrath of God would come upon them as well. It did.

QUOTE

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

This is a conditional promise and at times the Nephites lived under it. How about the US? Certainly the held an entire race in severe bondage. Their treatment of the Native Americans was certainly appropriately bondage. The early fathers thought that King George held them in bondage. That doesn't make the US a very good fit in anything except popular reading (by North Americans, surely).

QUOTE

As Chris put it: "That the "land of promise" here and in the promise to the Nephites is not limited to the Tehuantepec seems to be confirmed by the address to Joseph Smith's Gentile audience in the USA."

I know that it was read that way, but it is actually a very strained read. The text reads better in a more ancient (and prophetically fulfilled) context.

QUOTE

Moroni is saying that the Gentiles for which this book is intended, being modern day North Americans I assume, now possess the land that was referred to as the land of promise by the Jaredites and Nephites. This clearly means North America and not a small area in Southern Mexico.

Actually, Mormon assumes that the book is for the Lamanites principally. The Gentiles help bring it to them, but Mormon points it to the Lamanites. We gentiles just appropriate it.

QUOTE

"And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance."

Bountiful, just north of Zarahemla, where the Nephites have been for a couple of hundred years before and will be for about 400 more.

QUOTE

Christ seems to think that they are still in the land of inheritance, which he prepared for them and their seed.

Right. Not thousands of miles away (in either direction, take your pick).

QUOTE

2 Nephi 10:19 - Jacob teaching about the promises made to his people:

"Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among they seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all othere lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God."

Standard Nephite promise. This is your land as long as you obey God. It was given first in the land of Nephi, but the Nephites were driven from that land. It was later renewed in Zarahemla, and later after the removal to Bountiful. The promise followed the people. It was used as proof of the promise that when they were wicked that they were conquered. Nothing here requires a very extensive land.

Besides, what is choice? I have been through New England winters. I'll take highland Guatemala. I currently live in the desert Southwest. Highland Guatemala is still better. What kind of "choice land" are you thinking of?

QUOTE

These promises again certainly imply that the land of inheritance, or promise, given to Lehi and his descendants was larger than the isolated landing area you and Brant are suggesting. Jacob also seems to still think that he and his seed are living in the land of promise.

No, they don't. They are consonant with a small area. Please show me why you think differently. Jacob lives in the land of promise (Lehi received the promise before they arrived, the Nephites were forced out of that first landing very soon). Jacob's descendants will lose their promise through wickedness and only a small number escape to Zarahemla - and the promise moves with them.

At times the promise is actually individualized to personal righteousness. It is a promise of protection with righteousness of the people. It really isn't any particular land - except when righteous people are on it.

QUOTE

These verses are consistent with the original teachings of the church of a hemispheric model. There is no indication to what you, Brant, and others are suggesting, with this small promised land which they lost in a matter of years.

They are read that way, but they do not say it. They are actually not consistent with a hemispheric model. The only way they can be read that way is to begin with that assumption and read the text against the modern assumption, not against the text itself. That tells me that it isn't part of the text at all.

QUOTE

In regard to the other nations mentioned in 2 Nephi 1:5, I anticipated someone bringing up this verse. I agree with your assessment that this land would be a shared with other nations, but the question is when?

Again, it depends on the kind of evidence you accept. There are a couple of prophecies given in the Old World which make most sense if they were given with either prophetic future (or historical past) knowledge of others in the land. There is the evidence of the size of the population. There is the evidence of the economics of the population, and particularly the problem of polygyny at such an early time (not to mention incest issues). There is Jacob's sermon that Nephi told him to give that makes most sense as a dialogue inviting gentiles into a Nephite community (otherwise, it is a rather pointless discussion of something rather irrelevant thousands of years in the future - not much of a reason a king would request it). Military actions at an early date indicate larger populations that could be supported with the empty continent hypothesis.

Absolutely the only reason for not seeing others in the text is that they are not explicitly mentioned. Implicitly, they are all over the place. If you are reading the text in the ancient mode of a high context socieity (where they tend not to tell you what you should already know), then this not only makes sense, but makes the implicit information of the utmost importance, because that is precisely where such information should be.

QUOTE

Nephi prophesies about Columbus, presumably, and the subsequent colonization of the land explicitly in the BoM.

We think so, but it never really fits. Columbus never sets foot on any part of the promised land (where ever you think it might have been). It seems that there is a vision of the founding of the US but as a prelude to the discovery of the Book of Mormon - not as a discussion of Nephite lands.

QUOTE

Given the audience for which the BoM was intended,

This is another popular misconception. We think it was for modern people. There is no evidence in the text that Mormon or Mormoni (or Nephi, for that matter) conceived a a future people much different from the people they were familiar with. As I already noted, Mormon is pretty explicitly writing to the Lamanites first - and the gentiles could tag along.

QUOTE

I think this is consistent with D&C 10:49-51 as well, where it is talking about the plates and record of the Nephite prohets:

"their faith in their prayers was that this gospel should be made know also, if it were possible that other nations should possess this land".......

If Nephite prophets were aware of "other nations" already inhabiting the land, why would they wonder if it were possible that other nations should possess this land? It seems to me that these references imply future colonization by other nations. In fact, apparently the Nephite prophets clearly were unaware of other nations.

Using a modern reading to support the modern reading seems a bit circular, doesn't it? I would never suggest that it the text was not read hemispherically. The issue isn't how it was read, but how it should be read.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=32758&view=findpost&p=1208364549

Bill Hamblin

Feb 13 2008, 06:27 PM

Post #56

Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Group: Pundit
Posts: 938
Joined: 14-October 04
Member No.: 1026

QUOTE(Chris Smith @ Feb 13 2008, 01:11 PM)

And how many of these are not descendants of Noah? The Bible and the BOM treat ethnography and ethnogenesis in precisely the same way, and in a way quite distinct from modern concepts of ethnography and ethnogenesis. Should we reject the existence of the Hebrews because their ethnography differs from ours? Or should we attempt to understand their ethnography on their own terms? As far as I can tell, only LGT theorists take BOM ethnography seriously on its own terms. Critics insist on imposing 19th or 20th century ethnographical constructs on the text.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=32758&view=findpost&p=1208364559