The Lord told both Enos (Enos 1:11-13) and Mormon (Mormon 6:6) the Lamanites would destroy any Nephite records they found. Moroni understood this fact, and as the last Nephite (Mormon 8:3) hid up the records in the earth (Mormon 8:4) to keep the Lamanites from finding them. Thus, Mormon and his son Moroni both hid up the records to keep the Lamanites from finding them and destroying them.
Enos in prayer. As Jacob’s son, he was an eye-witness to the attempt to
reclaim the Lamanites and of their rebellion and persona
The Lamanites were an evil, godless, idol-worshipping people, both before, and after the 200 Years of Peace and Tranquility following the Savior’s advent among the Nephites. Not long after Nephi separated from his brothers and the sons of Ishmael, Jacob’s son, Enos, describes the Lamanites as “their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a bloodthirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us” (Enos 1:20).
As
late as the final battle with the Nephites when Mormon wrote in 385 A.D.:
“having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which
had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of
the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this
record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the
records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were
these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni” (Mormon 6:6).
There can be no doubt that the Lamanites destroyed all things Nephite, from their records to their cities and everything within. Their evil nature knew no bounds. When they captured a Nephite city and took captives, they sacrificed women and children to their idol gods (Mormon 4:14,21), in fact there was such an awful scene of blood and carnage that Mormon refused to even write about it (Mormon 5:9).
There is no question, that from the very beginning, starting with Laman and Lemuel, there was an anger and animosity between the brothers and Nephi over the role of leadership among them. Laman, the oldest, expected to be his father’s favorite and inherit the leadership of the family upon Lehi’s death under the law of Primogeniture, which dates back to the time of Moses (Deuteronomy 21:15-17), with its widespread institution whose legal, social, and religious features were reflected in the norms of ancient Israelite society.
To better understand this, the term bekhor (masculine son: firstborn; female is behirah: first-born daughter) was especially important and influential among the ancient Hebrews. The firstborn (also known as an eldest child or sometimes firstling or phirst) was the first child born to in the birth order of a couple through childbirth, and historically, the role of the first born child has been socially significant, particularly for a first born son in patriarchal societies. By birthright, the firstborn son inherited the leadership of the family and the judicial authority of his father under the Law of Primogeniture.
In fact, Biblical legislation gave the firstborn male a special status with respect to inheritance rights and certain cultic regulations—the latter, a part of a complex of cultic requirements, also applied to the first issue of the herds and the flocks, which, in the popular consciousness, were based on the notion that the God of Israel had a claim on the first offspring of man and beast, which were to be devoted to Him in some manner. This notion also governed the prescriptions regarding the offering of the first fruits. This principal stresses the relation to the father and outlines the first-born's status of principal heir and successor of his father as head of the family.
At the same time, the specification
that the bekhor be "the first issue of the womb, which stresses the
biological link to the mother and reflects the religious significance “of the
first products of the procreative process. The socio-legal conception,
therefore, was preserved in legislation governing inheritance. In Biblical
legislation, a father was obliged to acknowledge his firstborn son as his
principal heir, and to grant him a double portion of his estate as inheritance,
or whatever fraction a double portion may come to—where there are only two
sons, it is two-thirds, but where there are three sons, it is one-half
(Zechariah 13:8). As an example, in the case of Joseph's status as
"firstborn," he received twice the portion of any of his brothers
(Genesis 48:5, 22)—certainly an expectation of Laman, and no doubt the primary
purpose of his rebellion.
Thus, Laman became angry with Nephi when he believed his youngest brother was trying to usurp the leadership of the family even though he himself was the bekhor, saying: “Our younger brother thinks to rule over us and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people” (2 Nephi 5:3).
This anger at the Nephites for having stolen the birthright of Laman continued down through the centuries, and was a driving force around 30 B.C. when 300 Lamanites were converted by Lehi and Nephi and “laid down their weapons of war, and also their hatred and the tradition of their fathers” (Helaman 5:51). This is also seen in the letter Giddianhi, the governor of the secret society of Gadianton, wrote to Lachoneus, the governor of the Nephite lands, when the robber chief said, “that this my people may recover their rights and government, who have dissented away from you because of your wickedness in retaining from them their rights of government, and except ye do this, I will avenge their wrongs” (3 Nephi 3:10).
After
one thousand years, the Lamanites still vehemently maintained that the Nephites
had stolen the birthright from them and, as a result, the government of the
people, the rights of leadership in the Land of Promise, and therefore the
blessings of God. Though they themselves were godless, they still maintained
that the Nephites were the cause of all their problems and injustices that had
befallen them, and by the time of Mormon, were so worked up about it, that
their avowed driving force was to completely annihilate the Nephites and all
things Nephite, including all the records that might show a different view than
the one the Lamanites held to be true. Therefore, they had to destroy the
scriptures, the sacred records, the Nephite histories, and all things pertaining
to the Nephite claims to the land was paramount for the Lamanites to maintain
their claims.
That this was accomplished is evident from the lack of anything written surviving from the period of the Nephites. Nowhere in the Americas is there a written record of anything during the thousand-year period, and certainly there is no indication that Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian languages ever existed in the Western Hemisphere that has so far been found. Thus, it should be no surprise that there is no written history in the Peruvian, Ecuadorian, Chilean and Bolivian areas of South America, and the lack of such only shows the correctness of the Book of Mormon and its overall history of the wars among the Nephites and Lamanites.
The people of Ammonihah burned
destroyed all the Nephite records and writings, as well as the people of the
city
There can be no doubt that the Lamanites destroyed all things Nephite, from their records to their cities and everything within. Their evil nature knew no bounds. When they captured a Nephite city and took captives, they sacrificed women and children to their idol gods (Mormon 4:14,21), in fact there was such an awful scene of blood and carnage that Mormon refused to even write about it (Mormon 5:9).
There is no question, that from the very beginning, starting with Laman and Lemuel, there was an anger and animosity between the brothers and Nephi over the role of leadership among them. Laman, the oldest, expected to be his father’s favorite and inherit the leadership of the family upon Lehi’s death under the law of Primogeniture, which dates back to the time of Moses (Deuteronomy 21:15-17), with its widespread institution whose legal, social, and religious features were reflected in the norms of ancient Israelite society.
To better understand this, the term bekhor (masculine son: firstborn; female is behirah: first-born daughter) was especially important and influential among the ancient Hebrews. The firstborn (also known as an eldest child or sometimes firstling or phirst) was the first child born to in the birth order of a couple through childbirth, and historically, the role of the first born child has been socially significant, particularly for a first born son in patriarchal societies. By birthright, the firstborn son inherited the leadership of the family and the judicial authority of his father under the Law of Primogeniture.
In fact, Biblical legislation gave the firstborn male a special status with respect to inheritance rights and certain cultic regulations—the latter, a part of a complex of cultic requirements, also applied to the first issue of the herds and the flocks, which, in the popular consciousness, were based on the notion that the God of Israel had a claim on the first offspring of man and beast, which were to be devoted to Him in some manner. This notion also governed the prescriptions regarding the offering of the first fruits. This principal stresses the relation to the father and outlines the first-born's status of principal heir and successor of his father as head of the family.
Thus, Laman became angry with Nephi when he believed his youngest brother was trying to usurp the leadership of the family even though he himself was the bekhor, saying: “Our younger brother thinks to rule over us and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people” (2 Nephi 5:3).
This anger at the Nephites for having stolen the birthright of Laman continued down through the centuries, and was a driving force around 30 B.C. when 300 Lamanites were converted by Lehi and Nephi and “laid down their weapons of war, and also their hatred and the tradition of their fathers” (Helaman 5:51). This is also seen in the letter Giddianhi, the governor of the secret society of Gadianton, wrote to Lachoneus, the governor of the Nephite lands, when the robber chief said, “that this my people may recover their rights and government, who have dissented away from you because of your wickedness in retaining from them their rights of government, and except ye do this, I will avenge their wrongs” (3 Nephi 3:10).
That this was accomplished is evident from the lack of anything written surviving from the period of the Nephites. Nowhere in the Americas is there a written record of anything during the thousand-year period, and certainly there is no indication that Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian languages ever existed in the Western Hemisphere that has so far been found. Thus, it should be no surprise that there is no written history in the Peruvian, Ecuadorian, Chilean and Bolivian areas of South America, and the lack of such only shows the correctness of the Book of Mormon and its overall history of the wars among the Nephites and Lamanites.
While there appear to be very few matches in North America to the text of the BOM, it would seem that the in the area of a written language, the North American model has the advantage over South America and Mesoamerica.
ReplyDeleteNative tribes such as the Iroquois had a written language while the Inca did not.
The Mayan and Aztec languages have zero resemblance to the characters on the golden plates.
The BOM tells us that at the time of the Nephite destruction the Lamanites also had a written language. It appears to have been the same language that the Nephites used since Mormon and the king of the Lamanites wrote epistles to each other.
The text of the BOM does not suggest that the Lamanites were determined to destroy all writing, just the records of the Nephites.
Of course it is possible that in the degenerate state of the Lamanites in South America, that they ended up destroying all written language at some point before the Spanish arrived.
ReplyDeleteFirst: At the time we know that the Lamanites had and used writing, the Lamanites had their kingdom in common (Mosiah 24:4-7). At this time they were “friendly one with another” (Mosiah 24:5), thus providing a means and necessity to use a language--trade and commerce (Mosiah 24:7). Second: We do not know how the epistle Mormon wrote was delivered. It might have been by courier, by emissary, or some other means. Third, we do not know the king of the Lamanites actually read or wrote. There were numerous Nephite defectors among the Lamanites who could have “read” the content of the epistle. Nor is it said in what format the king of the Lamanites responded (Mormon 6:2-3). Fourth, shortly after the Lamanite victory at Cumorah, Moroni tells us they became involved in a serious war among them, i.e., they were “at war one with another” (Mormon 8:8), suggesting a war not of one side against another, but of all factions against each other, which was “exceedingly fierce among themselves” (Moroni 1:2) and was still going on 36 years, and no doubt continued for some time.
It might be considered that hating all things Nephite, and following 1,000 year history of being hereditary enemies, etc., that the Lamanites would want nothing to do with anything Nephite, language included. However, the main point is that any language, left to its own without written guides and people who taught and instructed in said language, is doubtful to continue. It is far more realistic for the written language to cease, than for it to continue in written format, since they were at war one with another, there would have been no need for writing, no one to contact outside their own small group—we see much of the same situation among the vast majority of American Indians, especially North America, at the time of the European arrival. Lastly, when you say: “The text of the Book of Mormon does not suggest that the Lamanite were determined to o all writing, just the records of the Nephites,” if you mean only the Book of Mormon content was to be saved, you err. All writing is called records when discussing ancient writing, and that was portable writing (on plates). An advanced people do not go around chiseling on bare rock or rock stelae for posterity. Also, we know that the Nephites had “many books and many records of every kind” (Helamanm 3:15),which were seen by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the room when the Book of Mormon plates were returned to Moroni.
Del,
ReplyDeleteYou are right that we don't know for sure that the Lamanite king who Mormon conversed with via epistles was literate. I do believe that this is the most logical conclusion.
The epistles could have been written and read by a Nephite dissenter as you have suggested.
On the other hand, it had not been all that long that the Lamanites had once again broken off from the Nephites following nearly 200 years of mutual peace and prosperity, so it is likely that there were Lamanites, certainly dissenters who became Lamanites, who could read and write.
At the end of the day, as you have pointed out, we should not expect the descendants of the Lamanites who destroyed the Nephites to have preserved any Nephite writings or even to have a written language.
A language could have survived or it could not have. It shouldn't be a deal breaker one way or the other.
Just out of curiosity where do you think the written languages of the North American Indian tribes came from? Did they just make it up on their own, or is it an adaptation or corruption of a previous language or languages?
Where might the Mayan written language have come from? I know you have written that you believe the Mayan ruins were built by Nephites (and presumably Lamanites) who traveled North in Hagoth's ships. So where did this strange Mayan language come from?
Furthermore why do you think no Nephite language would have survived further north, removed from the continued struggle between the Nephites and Lamanites?
Is it not conceivable that the Nephites and Lamanites who went North ended up mixing and collectively becoming Lamanites? Why would these people feel a need to destroy all written language and all the records?
I apologize for the barrage of questions. I accept the South American model as correct, but these are some things I'm still trying to sort out and understand better. Any insights would be appreciated.
Throughout history, there is an ongoing record of one people destroying all that existed of another people. Even in our day in 1940s Hitler and the Nazi's burned all the books they did not approve of; the Spanish burned all the books and writings of the ancient Mayan, etc. The record we have of the Maya were written by "converted" Mayan, that is some of learned the Spanish language. If you study the Maya characters, it would have taken a very long time to write things that way, doubtful it was a fluent language like we think today. Rudimentary writing systems are problematic at best--Japanese is one of those ancient languages that are slow to record.
ReplyDeleteAs for your other question, we are not suggesting that no language survived the War in 385 AD, only that it died out as generations passed away, heavily involved in civil wars, with any free time being spent on hunting, fishing and perhaps a little planting--a type of life style not conducive to study and recording events.