Entire populations lost to war?

[cacheman]

I don't see any requirement in the text for such to be mentioned in order for it (survivors/escapees) to have happened.

But you have the problem of Coriantumr and Shiz gathering up all the people, men, women and children, on the face of the land over a space of 4 years to have a final battle. No survivors are mentioned, the Nephites mentioned no survivors, and there are no "others" mentioned anywhere in the text. So survivors would have to be completely conjectural.

And apparently the church agrees with me:

JAREDITES People in the Book of Mormon who were descendants of Jared, his brother, and their friends (Ether 1: 33-41). They were led by God from the Tower of Babel to the Americas, a promised land (Ether 1: 42-43; 2-3; 6: 1-18). Although their nation had at one time millions of people, they were all destroyed by civil war brought on by wickedness (Ether 14-15). ("Jaredites" Guide to the Scriptures).

[_charity]

I think your basic question is a good one. However, Joseph Smith never said anyting about the "disappearance of the white races" by way of claims or explanations,etc.

Am I wrong to interpret the Book of Mormon account in that way? Weren't the Jaredites and Nephites white? And doesn't the Book of Mormon say they were eliminated through war? I admit I haven't read the book (except to look up some things) in over 20 years, but that's how I remember the story. What did I get wrong?

I don't think either were "white." Semitic. And whatever they were to begin with, they became mixed with other populations.

You might not have read in the Book of Mormon that very early on the terms Nephite and Lamanite were only political/religious distinctions. Jacob, the younger brother of Nephi wrote: " Jacob 1:13:14 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call cNephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

And throughout the history, this group separates and mixes and separates and remixes on numerous occasions, letting us know that the terms were not genetic, ethnic, etc. but political determinations.

[_bcspace]

I don't see any requirement in the text for such to be mentioned in order for it (survivors/escapees) to have happened.

But you have the problem of Coriantumr and Shiz gathering up all the people, men, women and children, on the face of the land over a space of 4 years to have a final battle. No survivors are mentioned, the Nephites mentioned no survivors, and there are no "others" mentioned anywhere in the text. So survivors would have to be completely conjectural.

How so? Do we have all points of view from that time? From the perspective of the writer, this may be the case, but not actually what happened.

And apparently the church agrees with me:

People in the Book of Mormon who were descendants of Jared, his brother, and their friends (Ether 1: 33-41). They were led by God from the Tower of Babel to the Americas, a promised land (Ether 1: 42-43; 2-3; 6: 1-18). Although their nation had at one time millions of people, they were all destroyed by civil war brought on by wickedness (Ether 14-15). ("Jaredites" Guide to the Scriptures).

That's simply a repeat from the one point of view. I think even a scientist of any type would not make the kind of argument you are making here.

[Anonymous]

Here is a question for ancient history buffs.

Do you know of any civilizations in the history of the world who eliminated themselves entirely in a civil war?

How about one side completely wiping out the other, while enough of the winning side survived to repopulate?

Obviously this is in reference to the Book of Mormon accounts of the Jaredites in the first case, and the Lehites in the other. I'm wondering about the validity -- compared to actual historical or archaeological accounts -- of Smith's explanations for the disappearance of the white races that he claimed once inhabited the Americas.

Hmm....not especially (like a war where everyone kills everybody else on down to the last man, who then percedes to choke on a pepper?). Usually the disappearance of an entire population requires a large stable external force which controls large tracts of land (for example the Assyrians who captured the 10 northern tribes of Israel and probably shipped them off where they integrated with the local populations) allowing for (and providing a reason for) the mass mobilization of an entire populace. Furthermore, the mobilizing force must have somewhere else they want to move them.

But you can't wipe away the bones of a civilization. Where ever man has been, man has left evidence, starting from flintknapping areas and firepits right on down to the Empire State Building with a twinkie wrapper next to it.

Another example would be the Roman devastations of various groups both in Italy and without, such as in Greece where numerous wars brought about Roman hegemony and all Greek successor states (of Alexander the Great's empire) eventually knuckled under Roman rule.

But I don't think it's possible for groups to completely wipe themselves out. It doesn't seem natural in a civil war. Civil Wars due tend to be bloody affairs, but since people are fighting their countrymen they want to topple the figurehead of the competiting side and simply reestablish rule....unless they are irrationally driven by an ideological aim (Pol Pot, Hitler) which seeks to purify the given populace of "offending" sections of society.

[_Runtu]

How so? Do we have all points of view from that time? From the perspective of the writer, this may be the case, but not actually what happened.

What I am saying is that the only piece of evidence we have is the text, which is quite explicit that there were no survivors. So, the only way we arrive at survivors is to go outside the text, which involves conjecture.

That's simply a repeat from the one point of view.

And here I thought it was a citation from an official church source.

I think even a scientist of any type would not make the kind of argument you are making here.

My only argument is that we don't get survivors from the text. I'm surprised you don't see it, but that's neither here nor there.

[_bcspace]

What I am saying is that the only piece of evidence we have is the text, which is quite explicit that there were no survivors. So, the only way we arrive at survivors is to go outside the text, which involves conjecture.

It is even more conjecture to think the person who worte the text was speaking for more than what he could view.

That's simply a repeat from the one point of view.

And here I thought it was a citation from an official church source.

It is and I appreciate the attempt to be official. However, the result is the same. It is still an expression of the point of view of one person who could not possiby have witnessed it all. There is no claim of revealed wisdom on this here.

My only argument is that we don't get survivors from the text. I'm surprised you don't see it, but that's neither here nor there.

I do see it quite well. However, I also see that this is only from one person's perspective. If he was in the south, how does he know what happened in the north, etc.? From his perspective they are all gone, but that still doesn't preclude survivors.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

But you can't wipe away the bones of a civilization. Where ever man has been, man has left evidence, starting from flintknapping areas and firepits right on down to the Empire State Building with a twinkie wrapper next to it.

Something that was left out of the Book of Mormon was the fact that all of the peoples that were wiped out in the Book of Mormon story, all had a bone deficiency. So bad that most were boneless, slugs that drug their spineless bodies around.. kinda like the spineless crooks at the top of LDS Inc.

[_charity]

But you can't wipe away the bones of a civilization. Where ever man has been, man has left evidence, starting from flintknapping areas and firepits right on down to the Empire State Building with a twinkie wrapper next to it.

Something that was left out of the Book of Mormon was the fact that all of the peoples that were wiped out in the Book of Mormon story, all had a bone deficiency. So bad that most were boneless, slugs that drug their spineless bodies around.. kinda like the spineless crooks at the top of LDS Inc.

Must have been the same bone deficiency that disintegrated the bones of the more than 20 million buffalo slaughtered on the great plains in the latter part of th 1800's. Or have you seen some great pile of buffalo bones as you drive through Kansas?

[Guest]

But you can't wipe away the bones of a civilization. Where ever man has been, man has left evidence, starting from flintknapping areas and firepits right on down to the Empire State Building with a twinkie wrapper next to it.

Something that was left out of the Book of Mormon was the fact that all of the peoples that were wiped out in the Book of Mormon story, all had a bone deficiency. So bad that most were boneless, slugs that drug their spineless bodies around.. kinda like the spineless crooks at the top of LDS Inc.

Must have been the same bone deficiency that disintegrated the bones of the more than 20 million buffalo slaughtered on the great plains in the latter part of th 1800's. Or have you seen some great pile of buffalo bones as you drive through Kansas?

Wow, that was was weak. But thanks for dusting off that old turd.

I saw that one years ago pushed out by one of the cats in the then FairLDS litter box, errr discussion board.

These buffalo were not slaughtered at the base of a small drumlin in upstate NY. Nor did the buffalo have millions of pieces of steel armaments of war.

[_Inconceivable]

A few clarifications:

Originally, God cursed the Lamanites with a dark skin. That was what primarily differenciated the Nephites from the Lamanites for many years. Given the curse, I assume Nephites taught their children that intermarrying was unthinkable.

The first record of race mixing was the account of the Nephite priests of king Noah that raped and had bastard children with Lamanite women (who later pled for the lives of these dirtbag males before the Lamanites). Yes, bastards - just as children of polygamous parents are legally termed bastards because the cohabitation is not recognized as marriage by their respective governments.

Another account was when Amalakiah (a white Zoramite) became king of the lamanites and took the dead Lamanite king's wife as his own (as was custom among the Lamanites).

Lamoni (a Lamanite king) offered Ammon (son of a Nephite chief judge) his cursed black daughter. Ammon turned him down. Evidently, race mixing did not seem to bother Lamanites. I assume that Lamanites did not call children of such arrangements "half breeds" since at least this proposed marriage had a Lamanite king's blessing.

After the conversion of many thousands of the Lamanites, they were designated "the people of Ammon" (a white Nephite son of a chief judge) or "anti nephi-lehis" and were given the land Jershon as an inheritance. It was within the land of the Nephites but seperated from the Nephites.

It begs the question, did Samuel the Lamanite have Priesthood authority? According to Jesus I guess he did. Because it was a different curse from Cain's? Or had Samuel turned white? Then how did anyone know he was really a "Lamanite"?

Regardless of the political/religeous 'iteness of the people, all became one following their global conversion to mormoism at the time of Jesus becoming "an exceedingly fair and delightsome people".

At which time some may have intermarried, but it should be noted that the Book of Mormon makes no mention of intermarrying that I can recall.

Case in point, Mormon and Moroni (father and son) prided themselves on being full blooded white Arian Nephite stock. Why would this matter? Did this set them above others tainted with the blood of the once cursed seed? Then why make the statement?

In the end, the term Lamanite was simply the name taken by those that first rejected the Mormon church several hundred years after Jesus - black, white of mutt. Later on, the Mormon church became so corrupt that those taking the name of Nephite were equally evil and corrupt - black, white or Mitt.

Was there a difference between the 2 groups before the big civil war? There really is no distinction.

I failed to see the difference between the two idiologies in the end - other than the last Mormon holdouts may have held to the distinction of Nephite in name only.

So what/who was it that was actually exterminated? Mormons and wicked Mormons? Or just the other side of a big group of mutts?

??