More Comments from Readers – Part VI

 Following are more comments or questions we have received from various readers of this blog.

Comment #1: “According to John Sorenson, about 200 languages were spoken in Mesoamerica alone when the Spanish arrived 1100 years after the demise of the Nephites. Other LDS scholars claim that by the time of the arrival of the English in some 100 or more years later, more than 1000 to 1500 languages existed in North America. These scholars claim that all these languages could not have derived from Lehi’s Hebrew in only 1000 years.” Carlton C.

Mosiah discovering the Mulekites or People of Zarahemla

 

Response: While we do not know what happened in people being led to the Americas after the demise of the Nephites and the fulfillment of the promise made to Lehi, we can consider this explosion of languages in 1000 years is less than problematic. As an example, when the Mulekites landed in the area of Zarahemla, they had no records, no written history, nothing to ensure the continuation of language other than the spoken word. In just 400 years, their speech could not be understood by the Hebrew-speaking Mosiah and the Nephites.

Now, the Mulekites Mosiah discovered had been isolated to just one location and one interaction of people. Now, consider Moroni’s words following 385 BC. “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). Thus, following their final victory over the Nephites, the Lamanites broke up into warring groups (tribes) and were at war for at least 36 years “with no end in sight.” Consider that during the following these Lamanite civil wars, individual tribes would have been found over the land with each tribe speaking their language isolated from any other tribe, like the Mulekites, but over an 1100 to 1200 year span, with all these groups’ languages altering and changing over that period—there would be as many languages as there were groups. And when the Europeans eventually cover all of North America, they found over 600 isolated Indian tribes, each with a different language. The population in these 1100 to 1200 years had reached an estimated 7 to 10 million—some scholars have opted for figures between 50 and 100 million (Alan Taylor, American Colonies, vol.1, Penguin History of the United States, History of the United States Series, Penguin, London, 2002, p40; David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, Oxford University Press, UK, 1993, p151)

Comment #2: “How can you claim that the Mulekites did not land in the land northward as Alma wrote (22:30), which says, “which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing” Alcon C.

 

The Mulekites were isolated in the area of Zarahemla in modern-day Lima, Peru. There is no mention in the scriptural record of another people

 

Response: According to Mormon’s writings, the Mulekites did not have contact with the Jaredites (other than Coriantumr).  When reading the full verse, and not just a part of it as you quoted, there is a “parenthetical phrase,” when understood, gives the meaning of the statement: “And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken (which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla), it being the place of their first landing.” In the case of any parenthetical phrase (above in italics), it is not part of the original meaning of the sentence, or rather, a digression from the original meaning. Thus, the sentence reads: “And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bones we have spoken, it being the place of their first landing.”
Thus, the “parenthetical phrase” is used as the mildest form of parenthesis, for when you want to quickly insert a detail without distracting the reader—it is called “a subordinate clause”: a “nonessential phrase” framed by a pair of commas. In this case, the sentence includes a subordinate clause: “which was the discovered by the people of Zarahemla.” If you temporarily remove that phrase from the sentence, its structural integrity remains intact.

Now before you ask “how do you know that it was intended as a parenthetical phrase,” let me suggest two reasons: First, we know this because of Omni 1:16, where we are told the Mulekites “journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.” That is, the Mulekites were brought across the sea into the area where Mosiah found them (the city of Zarahemla) and they dwelt there, in that land where they landed, until Mosiah found them.

That is why you know it is a parenthetical phrase in Alma 22:32, otherwise we would be given two entirely different landing sites.

Secondly, we know it is a parenthetical phrase because the sentence reads: “And it (Bountiful) bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it (Desolation) being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed (the home of the Jaredites), of whose bones we have spoken (again, the Jaredites), which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla (that is, the bones of the Jaredites had been discovered by Limhi’s 43-man expedition to find Zarahemla and all those in the expedition, and all those living under Limhi in the city of Nephi, had originally been from Zarahemla, or their parents or grandparents had been), it being the place of their (again refers to the Jaredites) first landing.”

Comment #3: “The phrases ”the whole earth,” or “all the land,” or “face of the whole earth,” are used, such as in 2 Nephi 17:24 as well as 3 Nephi 2:11 and 8:12, what exact area is being discussed? It sounds rather confusing when you compare them with the plainness in Mosiah 1:1 and 3 Nephi 8:12.

Response: We need to consider words and phrases in the light of the descriptions and surrounding verses in which they are used. This is seen in all the usages in 3 Nephi where almost all refer to the Land of Promise. In addition, in Alma 36:7, the entire verse reads: “And behold, he spake unto us, as it were the voice of thunder, and the whole earth did tremble beneath our feet; and we all fell to the earth, for the fear of the Lord came upon us,” which does not suggest an answer until you read the previous verse, which is: “For I went about with the sons of Mosiah, seeking to destroy the church of God; but behold, God sent his holy angel to stop us by the way,” which is descriptive of a local event in the Land of Zarahemla, therefore, the usage refers to the Land of Promise. On the other hand, where Mosiah 25:19 is explicit (all the land of Zarahemla), Alma 16:21 may not be, and Alma 20:8 might be misleading without putting the phrase into perspective.

Specifically, the verses you mentioned: 2 Nephi 17:24 (in all the land) refers to events in the Jerusalem and around the Levant (eastern Mediterranean); 3 Nephi 2:11 and 8:12, refers to the Land of Promise (which event may have included all the Western Hemisphere); and 3 Nephi 8:12 has to do with the Land of Promise

The point is, usage of these phrases, and any other, that might sound confusing usually occurs because one reads the verses too quickly, or singularly or separately and does not ponder or evaluate the circumstances of surrounding descriptive information.