   |
| Searching for "Others" in the Land |
|
|
To answer such a question, we need to examine some of our presumptions, and then re-examine the evidence. We will look at 1) The internal definition of "the land" in the Book of Mormon, 2) the internal evidence for contact with other peoples, and 3) the reasons why the Book of Mormon might not explicitly mention other people. The use of "the land" in the Book of Mormon One of the problems in dealing with the Book of Mormon is a presumption that the land of promise given to Lehi was the entire western hemisphere. An examination of the way the term "the land" is used in the Book of Mormon will allow us to see that "land of promise" in a much more limited context. There are two important cultural time periods in the Book of Mormon, the Old World and the New World time periods. While there is a continuity of one family between the two cultural contexts, there is yet a possibility that the New World usage of terms and concepts might change. Therefore, both should be examined. In the Old World context, "the land" is a designation referring to a limited geography that is associated with a political unit:
There are two usages of "the land" in this verse. The first refers specifically to Jerusalem, and the second to the "land of their inheritance" which appears to be related to the specific landholdings of Lehi's family. In neither case does "the land" have a universal aspect. The "land" is a particular defined area attached to some "ownership" whether by the political entity of Jerusalem, or the economic entity of Lehi's family. The use of "land" obviously was not tied to a specific concept of size, as it could pertain to the holdings of a city or of a family. Likewise, it could refer to the holdings of an entire country:
Finally, the use of "the land" might not even be a recognized division, as is the case when the Lehites arrive in Bountiful:
In the case of Bountiful, "the land" is still a limited geography, but not necessarily one that anyone else has recognized. It is simply an area that they are able to define (in this case by its difference in vegetation from the wilderness) and name. Once the Lehites arrived in the New World, they continued to make references to "the land." They appear to use the concept in virtually the same ways as they did in the Old World:
As they did with Bountiful, they arrived in a location, and named it. In this verse it is not necessarily clear, however, the extent of the land that they named "the promised land." It is possible that they might have referred to the entire hemisphere. Did they? One of the clues to this question is Nephi's apparent perception of the extent of "the land:"
The phrase "isle of the sea" is not absolutely unique to Nephi, but is used in Nephi in such as way to make it an important concept for Nephi's self-understanding. Of the ten occurrences of the phrase in the scriptures, eight of them are in Nephi's writings. To understand Nephi's usage, it is important examine the way the phrase is used in the other two examples:
The usage in Esther is obviously to known lands as it entails a tribute. While "isles of the sea" could be either specific or generic (as a term for "everywhere") it is certainly referencing the known world. The usage in Isaiah may be the more generic usage of the term:
Here it is not clear whether or not there are specific locations indicated. It is most likely that "isles of the sea" is a euphemism for "everywhere" in this passage. This usage is directly contrasted to Nephi, however, where Nephi considers himself to be on one of the "isles of the sea":
In this verse Nephi is citing promises to those on the isles of the sea, and specifically notes that because it is in the plural, that it must indicate "more than this." Nephi clearly believes that they are on one of the isles of the sea, and uses this verse to speak of their scattered brethren on *other* islands of the sea. Nephi's understanding of their location certainly stems from two sources. The first, and most obvious, was that they crossed an ocean to arrive at their location. That Nephi would not have know that they were on a continent rather than an island is certainly not surprising given the geographical knowledge of the times, and the little time that Nephi and his people would have had for exploring. A more important reason, however, is that Nephi had a theological reason for associating his people with the isles of the sea. In his readings of the brass plates Nephi obviously reads Zenos, and finds in Zenos a reference to a gathering from the isles of the sea:
When combined with Nephi's clear perception of his people on the isles of the sea, the connection between Nephi's concerns for his lost Jerusalem (for example 1 Nephi 19:20) and his desire for a gathering of his people as well as all of Israel becomes obvious. When likening the scriptures to their own needs, the gathering from the isles of the sea strikes a very strong emotional chord in Nephi who so poignantly remembers the separation from Israel. While Nephi clearly makes this connection, it is a connection and a description that fades from the Book of Mormon, and is never used after Nephi ceases to write. Nevertheless, it is important to place Nephi's use of "the land of promise" within the apparent context of his understanding of the relatively limited nature of their new location. As the narrative of the Book of Mormon continues, it is clear that "the land" continues the limited definition:
After two hundred years had passed Jarom can speak of the laws of "the land" and link them to the observance of the law of Moses. Clearly this is a Nephite definition. There are Lamanites living close enough to continually wage war on the Nephites, but they are obviously not obeying the laws of "the land." Thus "the land" is once again a very limited conception tied to a political unit. As the Book of Mormon narrative continues, "the land" becomes even closer to the Old World usage, as units are described as "the land of Zarahemla," (Omni 1:12) "the land of Lehi-Nephi," (Mosiah 7:4) and "the land of Shilom"(Mosiah 7:5). What then of the land of promise? There are times when "the land" might be seen as a large area, but these are typically parts of visions, where the future history of the world is being shown, and the linkages from the present to the future are not clearly defined. For the Lehites, the best reading of "the land" is that it is limited in scope. In that context, read the following:
The important phrase here is "that they may possess this land unto themselves." Even in the context of the Nephites, this was never true of the entire continent, because the Lamanites and Nephites existed simultaneously, as the Lamanites were certainly not credited by the Nephites as keeping the commandments. Thus in one sense there never was a time when the righteousness of the Lehites would have precluded any other peoples. The promise of possessing the "land unto themselves" fits much better with the limited land concept as it applied to the Nephites, and was a promise of inheritance of a limited portion of land based on their collective righteousness. Internal evidence of "others" in the land The first hint that there must have been other people in the land is derived from inference. The population increases in the Book of Mormon do not seem to be reasonable given the original breeding population of either the Nephites or the Lamanites, which probably consisted of fewer than five couples of child-bearing age at the time of separation (Sorenson, John L. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There, p.2) The probability that both the Nephites and the Lamanites were required to find marriage partners among other populations also follows from explicit and inherited marriage restrictions. The most immediate marriage restriction for the Nephites was a new one that required that they not mix with the Lamanites:
The point of the "skin of blackness" is "that they shall be loathsome unto thy people." Note that in verse 23 the curse extends to those who might marry any of these people. Thus there is not only a geographic division between the brothers and their families, but a moral and religious chasm as well. This restriction effectively removed the Lamanites as potential marriage partners. However, the inherited religious/cultural restrictions on marriage are also important for the social history of the Nephite (and Lamanite) populations. The preferred mode of marriage would be to marry someone within the same tribe:
A marriage in the ancient world dictated the flow of rights and properties. In the case of Israel, it was not only physical property, but a religious inheritance that was passed on. Thus the injunction to marry within the tribe. The Nephites would have been inheritors of that tradition, and would therefore prefer to marry within the tribe. However, half of the potential mates had been cut off and prohibited. The preference for marriage inside the tribe was coupled with other prohibitions against marriage of close kin, and some restrictions on marrying outside the tribe:
This analysis of the marriage laws is important to our understanding of the developing Nephite society. Not only is their tribe split in half, but by this time each person was related to the other by blood or marriage. As noted in Smith's passage, this would create tremendous difficulties in maintaining the Law. Three points become important. The first is that marriage outside the tribe, indeed outside of Israel was permitted but discouraged (with very specific prohibitions against the Canaanites, and legal prohibitions for marrying *men* from the Ammonites or Moabites). There is even the ability for men from outside of Israel to be incorporated legally. It is therefore quite likely that in order to continue the tribe, the Nephites and Lamanites were required to marry outside of their small group. This inevitable intermarriage with other natives of the land is the best way to account for the impressive increase in population noted in the Book of Mormon. While not the preferred method when the larger population of Israel was available, it was nevertheless allowed, and preferable to the more direct violation of the prohibition of marrying within ones immediate and near family (which certainly would have described the original Nephite and Lamanite bands at this point in time). The second point is that the prohibition of intermarriage with the Lamanites follows the long Israelite tradition of prohibiting marriage with a particular people. In the case of the Lamanites, there was likely just as much potential of disruption of the religious tradition of the Nephites as there was with the Canaanites. The third point of interest is that the prohibition against marriage with the Lamanites comes very early, and at this point is certainly directed at the specific tribal affiliation of Lamanites/Lemuelites, etc. When the term "Lamanites" appears to become a more generic term, akin to "gentile" it is likely that the specific prohibition was lessened, although it might have remained in place with the lineal descendants of these original Lamanites. For the Nephites, then, there was a tremendous obstacle to increased population. Not only was the breeding population small, but they were all related to each other in such a way that to have intermarried would have created a condition that their culture defined as incest. With such a powerful restriction and the lesser penalties for marrying outsiders (other than Lamanites) the greatest likelihood is that Nephites would have intermarried with others in the land in order both continue as a people, and to generate the populations apparent later in the Book of Mormon. The text of the Book of Mormon obviously is never explicit on the meetings with these other populations that are known archaeologically. How do we know that they interacted at all? John L. Sorenson suggests that the presence of corn as a staple crop among Nephites is direct evidence of such contact. After noting the presence of corn as part of the tribute owed by the Zeniffites to the Lamanites, Sorenson remarks: "Now, "corn" is clearly maize, the native American plant that was the mainstay of the diet of many native American peoples for thousands of years. There is no possibility that Lehi's party brought this key American crop with them or that they discovered it wild upon their arrival. Maize is so totally domesticated a plant that it will not reproduce without human care. In other words, the Zeniffites or any other of Lehi's descendants could only be growing corn/maize because people already familiar with the complex of techniques for its successful cultivation had passed on the knowledge, and the seed, to the newcomers. Notice too that these passages in Mosiah indicate that corn had become the grain of preference among the Lamanites, and perhaps among the Zeniffites. That is, they had apparently integrated it into their system of taste preferences and nutrition as a primary food, for which cooks and diners in turn would have had familiar recipes, utensils, and so on. This situation reminds us of how crucial the natives of Massachusetts were in helping the Puritan settlers in the 1600s survive in the unfamiliar environment they found upon landing. The traditional American Thanksgiving cuisine of turkey, pumpkin, and corn dishes--all native to the New World--is an unconscious tribute to the gift of survival conferred by the Amerindians by sharing those local foods with the confused and hungry Europeans. Did an equivalent cultural exchange and unacknowledged thanksgiving process take place for Lehi's descendants in the Book of Mormon land of first inheritance or land of Nephi?" (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There, p.5) Sorenson also notes:
The explicit mention of these "others" is missing, but there is yet evidence that something is going on that is much more complicated that just Nephites, Mulekites, and Lamanites. This, of course, raises the final question of why. Why doesn't the Book of Mormon explicitly mention "others?" Part of the problem lies precisely in our assumption that it should have mentioned them. Certainly a modern historian would have. However, in the ancient world we must ask similar questions of other more well known populations, for instance, why didn't the Egyptians ever mention the Hebrews? There is one stela that might be a mention ('Apiru=Hebrew?) but other than that - nothing. We make some assumptions of the Book of Mormon text that are way too modern. One of them is that if we are doing a history, then we should do history. The Book of Mormon isn't, and never was, that kind of history. As usual, the answers lie in the text itself. There are two relevant factors. First, very clearly the term Lamanite became a generic cultural delineation in much the same way that Nephite became a political/social designation. Later usages of "Lamanite" can be seen as equivalent to "gentile." The second factor is the nature of the text we have received. It is quite true that one would expect a history to have some indication of the contact and assistance by people in the area - and particular the cementing of relationships through marriage which I believe was inevitable. It is precisely that kind of information that is missing in 1 Nephi. Why? There are actually to problems, one is 1 Nephi, and the other is the Book of Lehi, which was lost. The answer to the 1 Nephi question is actually quite clear, because Nephi is explicit in stating that this is a secondary account, and that it is decidedly non-historical in intent. Nephi skips a tremendous amount of interesting historical detail to focus on particular events which were of particular personal interest. He narrates long on his vision, but covers years in the desert very quickly. In a short verse he and his brothers are married, but the time spent on that very significant event pales before the account of returning for the plates. Nephi specifically tells us that if we want "history" that we have to go to the other plates. Of course that is rather convenient, since we lost them. However, a few people did read them, and there has never been a folk tradition that they contained very much that we don't have (a familial relationship with Ishmael is all I have found). Had those lost pages of the Book of Lehi contained that kind of information, one would suspect that the tradition of that was current for a long time placing the Book of Mormon as the source of all native Americans would have been nipped in the bud. It wasn't. Now what about the Book of Lehi? Again we have to remember the nature of the Book of Mormon. We have very little holographic material in the Book of Mormon, with the greatest amount being the 1 Nephi - Omni section, and the rest Mormon/Moroni with discernible editorial insertions by Mormon. The Book of Lehi was not the original Nephi wrote, but the abridgement Mormon compiled. Mormon's editorial purpose was not historical (though he allows much more history into his narrative than Nephi did). Therefore it is not all that surprising that Mormon would edit out references to finding other peoples, as it was irrelevant to his purpose, and way too old to be interesting. The last question to be asked is whether or not any of these procedures makes sense in an ancient document. As Sorenson was the first to point out, the Book of Mormon reads as a lineage history. It is quite common in such histories that the lineage is of such primary importance that any other peoples are limited to minor mentions, if at all. It is typically "my lineage, exclusively." Even within the Book of Mormon, this tendency is recognizable. Sorenson observes:
As a lineage history preoccupied with the events of the dominant lineage, "others" are of little interest, even when they form a large portion of the immediate population. Thus one part of the answer to the missing peoples is the lineage preoccupation of the document itself. Such a propensity on the part of the Book of Mormon is also not surprising in the face of several Mesoamerican lineage histories, which tell of the particular tribe and make no real mention of what they went through to get to their land. Those documents (such as the Titulo C'oyoi, Annals of the Cakchiquels, Title of the Lords of Totonicapan, etc.) tend to mention other people only in establishing their connection to the mythical/historical Tula. Archaeologically, they were intruding on other peoples territories, but typically they don't mention it. In other words, the Book of Mormon is not out of place in either its internal construction nor in its type context to have left out such information. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1998 |
The archaeological
evidence for the New World is clear. The New World was populated from long before the times of any Book of Mormon
peoples, and the pre-Book of Mormon peoples ranged from North American to South America. There were clearly people
in many places in the New World with the Book of Mormon peoples arrived. Why aren't they mentioned?
|
|
|
|
 |