Were There Other People in the Land of Promise? – Part III

Continued from the previous post regarding the speculative historicity of other pre-Columbian occupants of the Land of Promise before, during and after Lehi landed. In covering the list of items that theorists claim show an occupation of the Land of Promise prior to, during, and after Lehi landed, the first four points were covered in the previous posts. Here we continued with number five:
5. The Mulekites’ language seems to have been “corrupted” too quickly for natural language evolution (Omni 1;17).
Mesoamericanists. This indicates that their language was being mixed with another language or languages from outside groups.
Response. The Mulekites landed in the area of Zarahemla (Omni 1:16) around 580 BC, and the events described by Amaleki of the corruption of their language happened is stated about 400 years later, when Mosiah discovered them. To consider that a language could not become corrupted in that period of time is to ignore the corruption of the English language in the past 400 years, which has had written books, extensive writing, teaching and learning. The period from Chaucer to Shakespeare, with books, teaching and thousands upon thousands of people repeating the language each day, it still went through an abrupt change

Left: Chaucer; Right: Shakespeare

It should be kept in mind that the people of Zarahemla brought no records, had no written books, no written examples of their language. With no samples of the language, and living within a completely closed society, it is no wonder that the language changed. To think it took outside sources to bring about such change is ridiculous, since dialectic language within the U.S. along over the past 300 years shows enormous change and how easily it is for language to alter given exclusion from outside sources, even when teaching is available and performed.
    There are also differences in both accents and dialects of people who speak the same language. While accents refer to the differences in pronunciation used by speakers of the same language, dialects refer to the differences in the entire language structure and vocabulary used by speakers.
    In the U.S. there are four distinct dialectic areas, where language not only different in many ways, but can be difficult to understanding upon first hearing it. Those areas are the West, the South, the Midland, and the Northeast. In some of the eastern areas, there are distinct dialects within small additional areas, such as Charleston-Savannah; Pittsburg and Philadelphia; New York; and New England.
6. The terms “Nephite” and “Lamanite” were broad enough to include a variety of ethnic and cultural sub-groups. 
Mesoamericanists. There are examples of Book of Mormon societies adopting the name of a host group upon joining them.

Response: We are given specific knowledge of who these sub-groups were: “Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites” (Jacob1:13). This is verified a thousand years later by Mormon: “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. Now the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites were called Lamanites, and the two parties were Nephites and Lamanites” (Mormon 1:8-9).
    At the same time, when the Mulekites, or people of Zarahemla, joined with the people of Mosiah (Omni 1:19), or Nephites, they were known as Nephites thereafter (Mosiah 25:13). In addition, the converted Lamanites, who were the children of Amulon and his brethren, who had taken to wife the daughters of the Lamanites, were displeased with the conduct of their fathers, and they would no longer be called by the names of their fathers, therefore they took upon themselves the name of Nephi, that they might be called the children of Nephi and be numbered among those who were called Nephites. The reason for adopting the name of Nephi is simple, and clearly given: “because the kingdom had been conferred upon none but those who were descendants of Nephi” (Mosiah 25:13).
    There is no hidden or suggestive comment here about a different people who were in the land when Lehi landed. There is no suggestion that another people occupied the land. No hint at an unknown people in the Land of Promise.
7. The way that Jaredite culture and names were preserved among the Nephites.
Mesoamericanists. This shows how cultural influence from one group upon another goes unmentioned and unexplained in the text.
Response: The reason why it goes unexplained is simply because there is nothing to explain. As an example, Zeniff, who traveled back to the city of Nephi after the Nephites were in Zarahemla for a generation, named one of his sons Noah—who later became king—and no explanation is given, yet Noah is distinctly an Old Testament name—not a Nephite name. In addition, Mormon tell us that he was named after his father, who was also called Mormon, but does not tell us why his father was so named (Mormon 1:5). In addition, Mormon named one of his sons Moroni, but does not tell us it was because of Mormon’s infatuation with Captain Moroni (Alma 48:17), who lived 400 years before his time.

The Sages say that naming a baby is a statement of the child’s character, specialness, and path in life. Even today, Jewish parents name their children after ancestors who achieved sucess of were highly thought of by others. They feel the child will then use that name as a road map to navigate through life. This is seen in the Book of Mormon when Helaman named two of his sons Nephi and Lehi (Helaman 3:21; 4:14), and tells us why: “and this I have done that when you remember your names ye may remember them; and when ye remember them ye may remember their works; and when ye remember their works ye may know how that it is said, and also written, that they were good. Therefore, my sons, I would that ye should do that which is good, that it may be said of you, and also written, even as it has been said and written of them” (Helaman 5:6-7).
    At the same time, we are told that king Lamoni’s parentage was through Ishmael (Alma 17:21); Tubaloth, was the son of Ammoron (Helaman 1:16); and king Laman was called after his father (Mosiah 24:3); Alma was identified as a descendant of Nephi (Mosiah 17:2). All of this is no different than being called after Christ, as Christians, is no different than members taking upon themselves the name of Christ, ”For behold, in my name are they called; and if they know me they shall come forth, and shall have a place eternally at my right hand” (Mosiah 26:24).
    The point is, people choose to call their children by names for various reasons, but that there is no hidden meanings suggested in the scriptural record why certain people were named as they were. Ammon was a descendant of Zarahemla, yet the name is a Hebrew name (ancient Egyptian) found in the Old Testament meaning “A people,” or “the son of my people.”
    Another name, Mormon, is identified as “And I, Mormon, being a descendant of Nephi, (and my father's name was Mormon) I remembered the things which Ammaron commanded me” (Mormon 1:5). Yet, there was also a place called Mormon, a day or two from the City of Nephi, which place was called the land of Mormon, the forest of Mormon and the Waters of Mormon (Mosiah 18:4-8), “having received its name from the king, being in the borders of the land having been infested, by times or at seasons, by wild beasts” (Mosiah 18:4). This naming was around 150 BC, and still called that in Mormon’s time about 500 years later.
    It is foolhardy to try and claim that a specific name suggests an overlap of cultures. After all, the Jaredite record was translated and was had among the Nephites in Zarahemla from the time of Mosiah II, when all the Jatedite names were well known among the Nephites. And according to Hebrew and Jewish custom, it was common for parents to give names to their children of heroes and people of other cultures in hopes of their growing up to those names achievements.

In the abridgements, people who often called Lamanites or Nephites, though each made up sub-groups or sub-families within the group

8. The use of some terms or group designations, such as “Lamanitish servants” (Alma 17:26) or “Ishmaelitish women” (Alma 3:7).
Mesoamericanists. This hints at affiliated groups of outsiders.
Response: There is no hint here or elsewhere of outside people or groups. In this case, the term “Ishmaelitish women” in Alma 3:7 is in regard to a curse put upon Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and “Ishmaelitish women.” This is not an inclusion of people outside the Lamanite or Ishmaelite group, but the women within the Ishmaelite group—that is, women who were Ishmaelites.
    As for “Lamanitish servants,” the sentence reads: “And after he had been in the service of the king three days, as he was with the Lamanitish servants going forth with their flocks to the place of water, which was called the water of Sebus, and all the Lamanites drive their flocks hither, that they may have water” (Alma 17:26), is also in regard to Lamanite servants of the Lamanite king over the Land of Ishmael. In verse 21, these servants are merely called “Lamanites,” and later “servants of the king,” and finally “Lamanitish servants.” To show this, we see that the king asked Ammon: “if it were his desire to dwell in the land among the Lamanites, or among his people” (Alma 17:22). That is, the king wanted to know if the Nephite Ammon wanted to live among the Lamanites or among the Ishmaelites.
(See the next post, “Were There Other People in the Land of Promise? – Part IV,” regarding the speculative historicity of other pre-Columbian occupants of the Land of Promise before, during and after Lehi landed)