Were the Mulekites Actually Jaredite Descendants? (testimony, Earth, gospel, Kingdom)

[DeepShadow]

Over fifty years ago, Hugh Nibley* made a powerful case for the Jaredites (chronologically the first BoM migrants from the Old World) being of Asian stock, and he further demonstrates how survivors of their final battle joined with the Mulekites, who later became Nephites.

Summarizing Nibley's best points (by his own admission he's longwinded!) we find the following comparisons between the Jaredites and the Asiatic Nomads:

--Jared and his people took all their friends and their families, regardless of blood relationship (Ether 1:41). The idea of mere friends as supporters and members of the tribe is common among Asiatic nomads (Nibley 179).

--Jaredites mix the professions of hunter/herdsman/farmer. Nibley cites McGovern as pointing out that "the tribes of the steppes have at all times been hunters, herdsmen and farmers all at once." (182; McGovern, Early Empires of Central Asia, pp. 44)

--"The pages of Ether are dark with intrigue and violence, strictly of the Asiatic brand. When a rival for the kingdom is bested, he goes off by himself in the wilderness and bides his time while gathering an 'army of outcasts.' This is done by 'drawing off' men to himself through lavish bestowal of gifts and bribes. The forces thus won are retained by the taking of terible oaths. (193)

More specific examples:

* "Lu Fang, 'the leader of a small military band, half soldiers, half bandits,' nearly won the hunnish and Chinese empires for himself two thousnd years ago, and would have done so had not some of his own ambitious officers deserted him just as he had deserted others."(194; McGovern, Early Empires p. 224-6)

* After the death of Atilla the Hun, "two of his descendants went out into the wilderness and there gathered about them 'armies of outcasts,' each hoping to win back the world empire for himself."(194; Jordanes, Hist. Goth. c. 35)

* "Not only is the Jaredite practice of seeking to 'draw off' to one's own side the followers of a rival while building up an army in the wilderness in the best Asiatic tradition, but the method of doing it is likewise in the best accepted tradition. Thus Akish bound his followers around the nucleus of his family (the Asiatic conquerers are fanatically family-conscious) by lavish gifts, for 'the people of Akish were desirous for gain, even as Akish was desirous for power; wherefore the son Akish did offer them money, by which means they drew away the more part of the people after them.'" (195; Ether 9:11)

* "It was the sons of Jenghiz Khan, you will remember, who did most of his campaigning for him, and from the very beginning the secret of his power was the huge heap of precious things that always stood near his throne, and from which, after the immemorial custom of the steppes, he rewarded all who joined him." (195; M. Prawden, The Mongol Empire, p. 86)

* "But if the ambitious chieftan gains adherents by bribery, he keeps them by oaths. The oaht is the cornerstone of the Asiatic state as of the Jaredite period. Akish again furnishes an excellent example:

[13.] And it came to pass that Akish gathered in unto the house of Jared all his kinsfolk, and said unto them: Will ye swear unto me that ye will be faithful unto me in the thing which I shall desire of you?

[14] And it came to pass that they all sware unto him, by the God of heaven, and also by the heavens, and also by the earth, and by their heads, that whoso should vary from the assistance which Akish desired should lose his head; and whoso should divulge whatsoever thing Akish made known unto them, the same should lose his life.

[15] And it came to pass that thus they did agree with Akish. And Akish did administer unto them the oaths which were given by them of old who also sought power, which had been handed down even from Cain, who was a murderer from the beginning.
(Ether 8:13-15)

"

* "The very oldest texts in 'the oldest language in the world,' according to Hommel, are incantations 'having the stereotyped conclusion: "let it be sworn (or conjured) by the name of heaven, let it be sworn by the name of earth!"'(196; Fritz Hommel, Ethnologie and Geographie des Alten Orients (Munich, 1926) pp. 21f)

--After the wars were decided, the old king was often allowed to live, as in the case of Kib, deposed by his son Corihor, but allowed to live and even have children, one of whom rises up against his brother and frees his father (Ether 7:4-9). Shule was taken prisoner by Corihor's son Noah, only to be freed by his own sons. (201)

--"When Baidu and Kaijatu disputed the throne of Asia, the advisers of the latter when he gained ascendency declared: 'It is right that he (Baidu) should be yoked under service, and that he should be kept in bondage for the whole period of his life, so that his hand can never be stretched out to kill or commit injury.' Kaijatu failed to heed this advice, to his sorrow, for presently his brother staged a coup and put him in a tower for the rest of his days, but refused to kill him."(202; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography I, 495, 500)

--"The expression 'yoked under service' reminds us that the Book of Ether kings are made to serve many years in captivity (8:3, 10:15, 10:30).

Nibley gives many, many more examples, but the above is sufficient to demonstrate a remarkable similarity. But the work is only half done, because even if we allow that the Jaredites were of Asian descent, the Book of Mormon cannot claim them to be ancestors of the Native Americans because it records that they were all wiped out before the arrival of the Nephites.

Or does it?

Could we be oversimplifying things in our readings of the Book of Ether? Nibley claims we have, due in part to the fact that "The whole Book of Mormon is a condensation, and a masterly one; it will take years simply to unravel the thousands of cunning inferences that are wound around its most matter-of-fact statements." As a case in point, Nibley points us to the references in the Jaredite account that suggest they were all destroyed. Says Nibley: "the word is to be taken in its primary and original sense: 'to unbuild; to separate violently into its constituent parts; to break up the structure.'" Does the Book of Mormon hold to such a definition?

--In 1 Nephi 17:31 we read of the Israel being destroyed, then being led.
--In 2 Nephi 25:9 we read of the Jews being destroyed from generation to generation...(wouldn't once be enough?)
--In 1 Ne 17:43 we read that the Jews at Jerusalem were destroyed, except for a few...but history records that they were scattered except for a few.
--In 1 Ne 13:35 both Nephites and Lamanites dwindle in unbelief after
they have been destroyed.

Finally, he points out that Alma 16:9 shows they did know how to express annihilation rather than decimation, and that this is the only time it has been expressed so. Regarding the so-called "extinction" of the Jaredites, Nibley points out that the prophecy given to Coriantumr only speaks of every soul of Coriantumr's kingdom and household, and that prophecy was fulfilled.

So where are the survivors? Nibley again points out that the vast majority of the dissenters from the Nephites (and quite a few others) have Jaredite names. Morianton, Corianton, Korihor, Nehor, Shiblon, and Noah are all names from the Book of Ether, and Gadianton bears a striking resemblance to the first two. The only contact we have with Jaredite culture is through the Mulekites, who were later absorbed into the Nephites. Seems logical that many of these people were dissenters because they were having second thoughts about Nephite rule, and were trying to do what they did when they hated the king--fight back using assassination, drawing off armies, and secret oaths.

Speaking of Mulekites, and reminding ourselves to avoid oversimplification, why are we taking their bizarre account of a second journey from Jerusalem at face value? Orson Scott Card** suggests that the entire origin story of Mulek being a son of Zedekiah is a total fabrication. Card points out that ancient mesoamerican politicking included games of one-upmanship in which nobles would declare their descent from a god or at least a king. Imagining the original meeting between King Zarahemla and King Mosiah, Card suggests that at some point Mosiah bears his testimony about his ancestor Lehi, the great prophet, and Zarahemla mistakes it for a play at right to rule. To counter, Zarahemla asks if Lehi was a king as well as a prophet, and Mosiah says he wasn't. Zarahemla then declares that his great ancestor, Mulek, was the son of Lehi's king in his old world, thereby giving him a right to rule over the Nephites. Mosiah points out that if that's the case, their language has been corrupted, and he produces plates that Zarahemla can't read. For this and other reasons, Zarahemla steps down in favor of Mosiah, but the story he spun remains because it allows the two nations to unite as brothers instead of as oppressor and oppressed. That a reference to this fiction made it into the Book of Mormon only means that Mormon believed the story.

Here I must admit, Card cites no source for the ancient systems of mesoamerican politicking--I'll do some more research into this--but it is, as he says, a decent explanation of how a good Jaredite name like Mulek wound up in the family of an Israelite king!

Finally (at last we reach the end!) if the vast majority of Mulekites were of Jaredite stock, then we need only remember that they vastly outnumbered the original Nephites before joining with them (Mosiah 25:2-3) for the current "DNA controversy" to fall right in step with everything else.

*--Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites, Bookcraft 1952
**--Orson Scott Card, "The Book of Mormon, Artifact or Artifice?" from A Storyteller in Zion, Bookcraft 1993

[DeepShadow]

....but there's the rub, huh? Because after all that, we're right back where we started. The DNA evidence can be used as evidence neither for nor against the Book of Mormon, because it supports both sides. As I've said before, looking for evidence of the Book of Mormon (without a testimony via personal revelation) is a zero-sum game. The first, last and best evidence of the Book of Mormon is the witness of the Holy Spirit.

[SoyLeche]

That's an interesting theory. I had always just taken for granted that ALL of the Jaredites were exterminated, but that never really made sense. I also had always figured that there had to be another source of people, because there seem to be too many people for the time frame. On that line, I have thought that the whole crossing of the land bridge at the Bering Strait may have been where some of the people came from. It makes sense that some of the Jaredites merged with the Mulekites at some point, and very likey with the Lamanites. It mentions that there were more Lamanites than Nephites and Mulekites combined. Anyway, just some slightly unorganized thoughts on the matter.

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

That's an interesting theory. I had always just taken for granted that ALL of the Jaredites were exterminated, but that never really made sense. I also had always figured that there had to be another source of people, because there seem to be too many people for the time frame. On that line, I have thought that the whole crossing of the land bridge at the Bering Strait may have been where some of the people came from. It makes sense that some of the Jaredites merged with the Mulekites at some point, and very likey with the Lamanites. It mentions that there were more Lamanites than Nephites and Mulekites combined. Anyway, just some slightly unorganized thoughts on the matter.

All excellent points! What are we to think when it talks about how much the Lamanites outnumbered the Nephites! On the one hand, there's no record of the Lamanites intermarrying with any other group...but on the other hand, why would there be?! How would the Nephites know any details of how this happened, and why would their historians make any mention of it? Long after the Lamanites intermarried with these other people, some of them may have rejoined the Nephites, such as the People of Ammon, but that would have been so far after that it wouldn't be worth mentioning.

As Nibley says, we oversimplify far too much. There is so much unsaid...but it's the part that's said that really matters most, huh?

[DeepShadow]

As this thread has become the subject of debate, I'd like a moderator to move it to an appropriate debate forum, please. I'll copy objections by Deut and Linwood, along with my rebuttals, at the earliest opportunity.

[DeepShadow]

Okay, it's taking too long to reformat, so I'll state my position one last time, as fully as I can, and then invite Linwood to rebut.
FIRST: Hugh Nibley cites anthropological data corresponding the Jaredites to Asiatic nomads. His entire text can be found [http://www.boap.org/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/...ites.html]here. My opening remarks are but a summary of a few of his points. He draws over 25 separate links between the Jaredites and these nomads, which--if left unrefuted--are more than enough to meet the 0.005% statistical significance standard for social sciences. (Whew, say that last bit five times fast!)
SECOND: The Jaredites, according to the Book of Mormon, were eventually divided into three groups: those who joined one of the two advancing armies, those who were killed because they wouldn't join, and those who fled before the armies (Ether 14:27). Both armies were eventually destroyed, leaving only Coriantumr (sole survivor of one army), Ether (prophet and record-keeper)...and the ones who fled.
THIRD: Coriantumr is recorded as having been discovered by the Mulekites (Omni 21); thus he was their contemporary, and by extention so were any other surviving Jaredites. The Mulekites, in turn, were later contemporaries of the Nephites. This is true even if the Mulekites were not Jaredites in and of themselves.
FOURTH: When the Lehites arrived, they make no mention of inhabitants, one way or the other. Whatever the circumstances of the land, they found it as they expected to find it. Looking in other parts of the Book of Mormon (Ether 2:5, Mosiah 8:8), we discover that whenever a land is uninhabited, it's considered noteworthy. Thus, the "argument of silence" falls in favor of the Americas already being inhabited.
FIFTH: As I stated on the Faking History thread, the Lamanites managed to have four times the Nephite population by the time Mosiah 25 rolls around, despite the fact that they started out smaller in number--with fewer women--and didn't practice polygamy. It says they outnumbered the Nephites and Mulekites together (verses 2-3), so logically neither of those groups could be providing this population increase. That leaves, among others, the surviving Jaredites.
SIXTH: After the arrival of the Mulekites, Jaredite names and customs start springing up. "Mulek" is a Jaredite name, and the name of one of Mulek's direct descendants is Coriantumr, another Jaredite name. These names crop up more prominently among the dissidents from the Nephites: Morianton, Corianton, Gadianton, etc. Those with these names are found practicing Jaredite customs (secret combinations) and insisting on a restoration of old Mulekite nobility (king-men). They are often recorded as being exceptionally large, as the Jaredites were (source pending!). Also, after the arrival of the Mulekites, the Nephites start using Jaredite weights and measures (Alma 11:15, Ether 1:11). All of this strongly suggests that if the Mulekites were not Jaredites themselves, they were strongly influenced by Coriantumr and any other Jaredite survivors. Even if Mulek was a son of King Zedekiah, he spent enough time among Jaredites to get a Jaredite name, and his people spent enough time among them to pick up many, many traditions. Surely that's long enough to intermarry, too.
SEVENTH: In the book of Fourth Nephi, the terms "Nephite" and "Lamanite" are discarded for several years, after which they are taken up again, not as terms of lineage, but as terms of religious belief (or lack thereof). Thus the "Lamanites" at the end of the Book of Mormon may be of any bloodline. One would expect them to have mostly Asiatic DNA, with traces of Hebrew or Arab.
EIGHTH: DNA evidence cited in American Apocrypha suggests that the Native Americans have Asiatic mitochondrial DNA, but until we get some source data with specific statistics, it's hard to say more on this. We do have haplogroup statistics on one group of Native Americans who have a strong marker for Hebraic ancestry. We have other studies, from the American Journal of Human Genetics, that confirm Hebraic DNA in these groups.

[DeepShadow]

This DNA evidence is corroborated by uncountable archeological findings that point to Siberian immigration across a northwestern Bering Straits land bridge.

Aside: I'm perfectly comfortable with a Bering land bridge, but last I checked there was very little archaeological evidence for the theory. See Who Discovered America? by Williamson Publishing. For those taking score, WDA is a non-LDS publication, and grossly misrepresents the Book of Mormon with the same oversimplifications as found above, but the BoM references are practically parenthetical; the Bering Strait info is much better researched.

It`s estimated that before European colonization that there were upwards of 100 million native Americans.
If this 100 million were descendants of Nephi their decendants DNA would show a mid-east origin.

Unless they joined a larger group, as recorded in the Book of Mormon. Part of the problem is in the use of the term "Nephite" as both a lineage and a nationality. While still calling themselves "Nephites," the nation by that name had a minority of descendants of Nephi. Most of them were "Mulekites," a group of questionable origins that appeared in the Americas before the Nephites.

The BoM makes no mention of any other people living in the Americas when they landed or for the roughly 1000 years they lived here, in fact it implies the land was empty.

No offense, but this is demonstrably false. See "Mulekites," above. I really don't see how "prepared" means "empty;" they had a term for uninhabited wilderness, and it's never used to describe their new land. In this case, it's perfectly possible that "prepared" meant "there's a group of people over here who have fallen into confusion and are ready for you to lead them," which is exactly what the Book of Mormon records having happened.

It seems unlikely that such a large number of Isrealites would have totally "Died Out" to the point that no mitochondria DNA has survived.

Agreed, if the original group were a "large number of Israelites." Not only is there considerable evidence suggesting the more numerous Mulekites were of Siberian/Middle Asian extraction, but there's at least passing evidence that Lehi and his family were not typical Israelites in terms of bloodline.

[snip conversational bits]

The church has issued a statement to the effect that the Book of Mormon doesn't claim to account for all the vectors of Native American ancestry, and it never has. Some scholars have challenged the reliability of the mitochondrial DNA testing. Myself, I actually favor the DNA evidence, for reasons put forward on the "Mulekites" thread.

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

At the same time, the LDS Preface to the Book of Mormon states:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

One would think that one's "principal ancestors" would leave a fairly accessible DNA trail.

Of course they would, but of what DNA?! "Lamanite" is just as much a nationality as "Nephite," and the case here is furhter compounded by the fact that the Lamanite branch, as far as we know, kept no written records! They could have intermarried with locals just as the Nephites did, and they wouldn't have needed a cohesive legal fiction to do so!

The Book of Mormon as much as says that the Lamanites intermarried with locals early. At the time the Nephites combined with the more numerous Mulekites, it says that the Lamanites were already more numerous than all of them combined. Based on the scattering of the Jaredites after their last war, it's more than likely that whoever the Lamanites intermarried with to produce this population boom would have also had Asiatic DNA. Back to square one.

Perhaps it would be clearer if the introduction read, "and of the groups mentioned, they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." One can hardly expect the introduction to make spontaneous statements about other unknown groups.

[painted wolf]

actually the purported ties with asian cultures are just as workable for ancient Isralites.
Hunters, farmers and herdsman....
egads thats all of us at some point in our hisrory.

as for the rest:

Jared and his people took all their friends and their families, regardless of blood relationship (Ether 1:41). The idea of mere friends as supporters and members of the tribe is common among Asiatic nomads (Nibley 179).

or any other tribal people.

"The pages of Ether are dark with intrigue and violence, strictly of the Asiatic brand. When a rival for the kingdom is bested, he goes off by himself in the wilderness and bides his time while gathering an 'army of outcasts.' This is done by 'drawing off' men to himself through lavish bestowal of gifts and bribes. The forces thus won are retained by the taking of terible oaths. (193)

or England during the war of the roses. Or any other troubled area with heridtary rule. Heck look at modern gurilla conflicts in Central America, South Asia and Africa.

"Not only is the Jaredite practice of seeking to 'draw off' to one's own side the followers of a rival while building up an army in the wilderness in the best Asiatic tradition, but the method of doing it is likewise in the best accepted tradition. Thus Akish bound his followers around the nucleus of his family (the Asiatic conquerers are fanatically family-conscious) by lavish gifts, for 'the people of Akish were desirous for gain, even as Akish was desirous for power; wherefore the son Akish did offer them money, by which means they drew away the more part of the people after them.'" (195; Ether 9:11)

sorry but this is one of the odest tricks in the book of warfare... it certenly isn't indicitive of one geographical location.

I'm sorry but trying to say that these guys arn't Isralites but now Asians isn't jiving.
How would a nomadic band in the depths of farthest Asia get the Urim and Thummim?

Add to this that they still would have left genetic markers ammong the modern population, there arn't any anomolous genetic markers.

wa:do

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

How would a nomadic band in the depths of farthest Asia get a Urim and Thummim?

I fixed your question. There are more than one Urim and Thummim.

[painted wolf]

So an Asiatic Nomadic goup had the same type of "prophectic devices" under the same name as anchent Isrialites? And they just happined to take it with them to the "new world" and not leave a trace of it behind in Asia?
(and I beleive it would be "an Urim and Thummim" )

Still doesn't jive.

wa:do