Sometimes these assumptions go far afield in order for the theorist citing them to make a point regarding their view and model of the Land of Promise. Take, as an example, John A. Tvedtnes comment: “There are, in fact, some possible references to outsiders in the Book of Mormon.
“A man in the Book of Mormon who led a group of Nephites who desired a
king during the reign of the judges. These Nephites, called Amlicites, openly
rebelled against God, for which they were cursed” (Alma 2-3)
Now, the Amalekites, unlike the Amlicites and Amulonites, are not given an origin in the scriptural record, however, we find in that Mormon states “there arose "false prophets" and "false preachers," who were punished as the law allowed, and some of them joined the ranks of the Lamanites (Words of Mormon 1:16), which should suggest that the Amalekites were Nephites who fell under the law and were punished, while others defected over to their enemy, the Lamanites. Yet, Tvedtnes goes on to say, “I have noted elsewhere that the antichrist Sherem (Jacob 7) may have been an outsider. Jacob wrote of him, "there came a man among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1). Does this mean that he was not a Nephite?”
There is absolutely no reason to suggest he was an outsider or foreigner merely because of the statement that “there came a man among the people of Nephi.” After all, Jacob is only introducing a dissident among them who “began to preach among the people” (Jacob 7:2) about there being no Christ.
Of Sherem, the Nephite record states that
“he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there
should be no Christ”
It seems that Tvedtnes is making a mountain out of a molehill, as the saying goes. Because someone has a “perfect knowledge of the language” does not necessarily mean that it is a learned or second language—it only means that he was an expert in the use of his language to the persuading and confounding others. As an example in the early days of politics in this country, there were those who could speak extremely well. Take George Washington’s farewell address after his eight years as President—it was so moving and noteworthy it was cited in political discourse for years to come—by 1899, it was annually read during the celebration of his birthday in both the House and the Senate. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is still considered an outstanding oration, as is the more recent Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream’ speech, and Ronald Reagan who was considered “The Great Communicator.”
Ronald Reagan, the Great Orator, and the Great Communicator, seen here giving one of his
famous heartfelt and motivational speeches
It might appear that Sherem was a master at public speaking as well as in shaping public opinion. He evidently was very effective at using meaningful words and powerful phrases, a master at timing, and spoke in a way that motivated people by building emotion into his speech and speaking with conviction. All of this falls within the description of “having a perfect knowledge of the language.”
In addition, Professor Royal Skousen supposes, as does some other scholars, that based on evidences in the wordage of the original manuscripts of the scriptural record, they claim that the “Amalekites” and the “Amlicites” are not two separate groups but the same group of people. They believe the original manuscripts provide evidence that this confusion arose due to human error in transcribing the Book of Mormon into English, as unfamiliar names were at times spelled inconsistently, as the contents of the Book of Mormon were verbally dictated to the scribes. That confusion, while not having doctrinal implications for the book's contents, are claimed to still exists in the Book of Mormon.
Then there is another supposition based upon Hugh Nibley’s belief that the word “destroyed” in the Book of Mormon does not mean what most people believe, and defends his view of Jaredites surviving the final battle by stating: "What does the Book of Mormon mean by 'destroyed'? The word is to be taken, as are so many other key words in the book, in its primary and original sense: 'to unbuild; to separate violently into its constituent parts; to break up the structure.' To destroy is to wreck the structure, not to annihilate the parts. Thus in 1 Nephi 17:31 we read of Israel in Moses' day that, 'According to his word he did destroy them; and according to his word he did lead them,' bringing them together after they had been 'destroyed,' i.e., scattered, and needed a leader. 'As one generation hath been destroyed among the Jews,' according to 2 Nephi 25:9, 'even so they have been destroyed from generation to generation according to their iniquities.'”
However, while some words mean one thing today and something else in the past, the word “destroy” in 1828 New England when Joseph Smith was translating the Jaredite record from the plates, meant: “To lay waste; to make desolate. To kill; to slay; to extirpate; applied to men; to cause to cease; to put an end to; to kill; to eat; to devour; to consume. In general, to put an end to; to annihilate a thing or the form in which it exists.” As a participle passive (destroyed), meant “demolished; pulled down; ruined; annihilated; devoured; swept away.”
Coriantumr was the last of the
Jaredites (other than Ether) to survive the great and final battles between his
people and those of Shiz
Thus,
it is hard to claim, as Nibley does, that there were Jaredite survivors of this
last battle. But Nibley goes on to state: “A complete slaughter of any one generation would of course be the end
of their history altogether, but that is not what 'destroyed' means.” However,
in the 1828 American Dictionary of the
English Language, in addition to what is shown above, also includes: “An army
is destroyed by slaughter,” clearly meaning it is annihilated.
While Nibley uses Biblical meanings, he neglects to understand that the Book of Mormon wordage was not translated by Biblical age interpretation, but by the English used by Joseph Smith in 1829 New England, America—and his language is thoroughly recorded by Noah Webster in his 1828 American dictionary.
Nibley goes on to state: “The first thing that occurs to King Mosiah on the discovery of the twenty-four gold plates was, 'perhaps they will give us a knowledge of the remnants of the people who have been destroyed, from whence this record came' (Mosiah 8:12), showing that whether anyone survived or not, for Mosiah at least it was perfectly possible for remnants of a people to exist after that people had been 'destroyed.'”
First of all, Nibley meant king Limhi, not Mosiah, and though Nibley creates a scenario of thought that supports his belief, it is not supported by the scriptural record in order to defend his stance. After all, we are dealing here with king Limhi, who only knows that a large number of people were killed in the northern land as reported by his 43-man expediton to find the city of Zarahemla—he knows nothing of who they were, how many were involved, who caused their deaths, and what the fighting that led to their deaths was all about. He only knows that his men in the expedition “having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel” (Mosiah 8:8).
Why would he not think a remnant had survived? What would cause him to think an entire civilization had been wiped out to the last man? All he knew was a very large segment of people were killed off, but as far as he knew, and most people would think this, that a remnant had survived.
But did a remnant survive? Do we have any evidence in the Book of Mormon to state that they did or did not?
(See the next post, “Did Jaredites Survive Their Final Battle? – Part II,” to see what Ether, Moroni and Mormon had to say about this).
While Nibley uses Biblical meanings, he neglects to understand that the Book of Mormon wordage was not translated by Biblical age interpretation, but by the English used by Joseph Smith in 1829 New England, America—and his language is thoroughly recorded by Noah Webster in his 1828 American dictionary.
Nibley goes on to state: “The first thing that occurs to King Mosiah on the discovery of the twenty-four gold plates was, 'perhaps they will give us a knowledge of the remnants of the people who have been destroyed, from whence this record came' (Mosiah 8:12), showing that whether anyone survived or not, for Mosiah at least it was perfectly possible for remnants of a people to exist after that people had been 'destroyed.'”
First of all, Nibley meant king Limhi, not Mosiah, and though Nibley creates a scenario of thought that supports his belief, it is not supported by the scriptural record in order to defend his stance. After all, we are dealing here with king Limhi, who only knows that a large number of people were killed in the northern land as reported by his 43-man expediton to find the city of Zarahemla—he knows nothing of who they were, how many were involved, who caused their deaths, and what the fighting that led to their deaths was all about. He only knows that his men in the expedition “having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel” (Mosiah 8:8).
Why would he not think a remnant had survived? What would cause him to think an entire civilization had been wiped out to the last man? All he knew was a very large segment of people were killed off, but as far as he knew, and most people would think this, that a remnant had survived.
But did a remnant survive? Do we have any evidence in the Book of Mormon to state that they did or did not?
(See the next post, “Did Jaredites Survive Their Final Battle? – Part II,” to see what Ether, Moroni and Mormon had to say about this).
I can read the arguments by Nibley and others and think that MAYBE there were some other groups around. But evidence that it MAY be possible is not a proof.
ReplyDeleteSo to jump from giving very speculative evidence to "that settles it, there were other groups" is not logical or honest.
To be completely honest they would have to admit in every instance when they talk about it that it is speculative.