Seventies and Apologetics

I’m not really an apologist (if you want real apologetics, try Jeff Lindsay or Ben Spackman or Dan Peterson), but I just had a short, humorous, quasi-apologetic thought. I’ve seen a claim that the Book of Mormon can’t be true because it requires too many people. I believe the numbers used are generally those from Mormon 6:

And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni. And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst. And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.

That’s a lot of people — when you add in Mormon’s ten and the other ten in the next verse, over a quarter million. But let me ask you this: Do we have a First Quorum of the Seventy? Yes, we do. And how many people are in it? Err, thirty or so. Maybe forty. Second Quorum of the Seventy? Hmm, another thirtyish. And these quorums have been even smaller in the past. So isn’t it possible that Moroni’s “ten thousand” is about as numerically accurate as the Seventy? I can imagine the conversation now:

Mormon: Congratulations, son. You’ll be leading a Quorum of Ten Thousand.
Moroni: That’s great! Why, with ten thousand men, I could attack their lines, defend this hill, and . . .
Mormon: Who said anything about ten thousand men? It’s a “Quorum of Ten Thousand.” And all thirty-seven of them will be reporting for duty tomorrow. Have fun!

Presto — no more “too many Nephites” problems. (Okay, I’m done, I promise. I’ll go back to my regularly scheduled posts about SSM and abortion, and leave apologetics for those who actually know their stuff.)

18 comments for “Seventies and Apologetics

  1. Um, Kaimi, the number problem is far worse than your little anecdote might imply.

    For the Amlicite-Nephite war of 87 B.C., Alma 2:17-19 reports a total of 19,094 fatalities (exact numbers). On the basis of these figures John Sorenson estimated the total Nephite-Lamanite population to be over 600,000 at that time (about 200,000 Nephites-Amlicites and over 400,000 Lamanites). For an original band of thirty reproductive individuals in 590 B.C. to proliferate even to 19,094 by 87 B.C. would require an average annual growth rate of 1.3 percent sustained over the span of five centuries. To reach the 600,000 level Sorenson determined to have existed at that point, the growth rate would have had to be 2 percent, again maintained for five centuries. This is a level never reached on a global scale until 1960 and fifty times the actual world rate of the pre-industrial epoch. It is a rate that, even when attained, can only persist briefly.

  2. D.

    Do those numbers take into account the people of Zarahemla, who joned with the Nephites about 50 years before the war reported in Alma 2, and who in Omni 1:17 were reported to be “exceedingly numerous”?

  3. According to Church doctrine, that the Book of Mormon is absolutely true, no other people existed on this continent, until it was colonized by Lehi’s group. The people of Zarahemla must have come from this original group, as much as anyone else.

    Of course, this is perfectly ridiculous. There must have been other people living and breeding here. I’m just guessing that the exact numbers as quoted in Alma 2 are not correct, maybe as much as 50 times too many.

  4. Ok guys, lets get to real numbers.

    Lehi takes only his family, but his best friend takes his extended family and “all his house” which is generally used to include servants and slaves. Of course the eight year wilderness trek results in all of the slaves being forced to chose between being abandoned in the wilderness or becoming permanent slaves (with the later complaint from their decendants about how they were forced to be slaves in the wilderness).

    Number at Bountiful — at least 300. L&L when they refuse their labor to Nephi are refusing their share of slaves and servents, not themselves, which is why they don’t notice the boat he is building until it is finished. When Nephi leaves with anyone who wants to go with him, he runs off with all the help, which is the real reason his brothers are mad at him.

    Now we get to Jacob in the temple. How are guys practicing polygamy and having concubines without their families knowing about it? Not like it is only a group of 30 or 40. Not going to happen. By this point the Nephites are already an elite in the midst of natives.

    By the end …

    Well, how many Romans did a Centurian command? How many to a Century? (You know, I’ve posted this before).

    40-60, less after a long campaign. Sure, a Centurian is a commander of “a hundred” but in a bad year he could be a commander of 30. A Legion of 10,000 could be down to 1500.

    “Ten thousands” are probably the name of a military unit, not unit strength. Given the run-up to the end of the Nephite nation (and note, the wars go on without them once their elites have been eliminated), 1,500 to a “ten thousand” might be on the high side.

    Not that there were necessarly that many Nephites. I was struck by the discussion of the various dissenters and the comment that the priests of Noah and their children were about as numerous as the Nephites alone. Darn, need a search function for comments so I can find that one.

    Anyway … pretty easy to see the numbers making sense.

  5. D, my personal theory is that Americas were populated with other people when the Nephites and Lamanites landed. Who were these people? Former Jaredites, perhaps, and maybe even people who came over from Russia and spread into the Americas. When Nephi separated from the Lamanites, he went up to the city of Nephi, where he very quickly built a temple. If you assume that Nephi, Sam, Jacob, Joseph, Zoram and perhaps one or two other adult males were there and perhaps a total of 12 or so teenage kids — that gives you a total of about 20 males maximum. It’s not reasonable to think that 20 males built a temple (along with all the other things they had to do in terms of planting crops, building houses, etc, etc). It’s more reasonable to think that Nephi became the leader of a group of people who had come to the Americas plus a larger group of people who already lived there and came to call themselves Nephites because they wanted to follow Nephi. Why would they follow Nephi? Perhaps they liked his philosophy and his spiritual nature. This also explains how the Nephites and Lamanites could war against each other (20 on 20 is not much of a “war”; more like a skirmish). So, if we’re talking about communities of several hundred or perhaps even several thousand people by, say, 560 BC, it’s easier to see how they could grow to 600,000 people five centuries later.

    This theory, by the way, also explains why the whole DNA issue is bogus. Do Jaredites have Asian DNA? Maybe. Are there others who came over from modern-day Russia who have Asian DNA? Probably. So, claiming that the BoM is wrong because modern-day Indians have Asian DNA is not much of an argument.

  6. D, I am unaware that official Church doctrine says that nobody else lived in the Americas until Lehi’s group came. I’d like to see that reference.

  7. I am always suspicious of claimed large numbers of people in scripture–any scripture. The ancients had a marked tendency towards exaggerating such things.

    For an introduction to this phenomenon (focusing more on corruption than exaggeration),
    consider Enrichment Section E (at p. 193) to the first
    volume of the CES Institute Manual for the Old
    Testament, entitled “The Problem of Large Numbers in
    the Old Testament.” The direct link is

    http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/OTStudntMan32489000/Chapters/OTInstGen_2Sam32489000_27.pdf

  8. I agree with Ephesis and Geoff that the real numbers in the BoM aren’t real at all. I also agree that other people besides those mentioned in the BoM lived here, and ultimately merged with the Nephites and Lamanites. It is a similar issue to the numbers as listed in the Old Testament — numbers often didn’t translate correctly, or a digit was left off, or a “naught” (0) was added. Or perhaps the author miscounted. Or perhaps the numbers were purposely exaggerated to make an important point.

  9. Anyone know how to link to that Sunstone cartoon? I think that is the best explanation of the large numbers.

    (It shows a Nephite trying to justify his military budget based on an imminent attack by 10,000 people. About 20 Lamanites are milling around in the distance.)

  10. D.

    Just one minor point or two. I mentioned the people of Zarahemla in my previous comment–the scripture describes them as descendants of people who came to this continent with Mulek, who left Jerusalem not with Lehi and his group, but several years later, at the time that Babylon conquered Judea. Therefore, I think that they should be counted separately from the Lehi/Ishmael group.

    Second, I believe that in Seminary in 1967 (if I can remember anything from that long ago) I heard it said that the Lehites were the only ones here (ok, along with the stray surviving Jaredite and the people of Zarahemla). I don’t know that what I was hearing was official doctrine, and don’t recall any subsequent statements to that effect.

    Whatever the case was then, I’m inclined to agree with you regarding the difficulties in reporting numbers accurately. Even the United States Army could never get the numbers of dead Viet Cong right.

  11. I do think it’s interesting that 10 or 15 years ago, essays and spirited defenses were being written to explain why the Book of Mormon population could be huge. Examinations and studies were done of the original group Lehi brought to try and demonstrate that a small group could multiply into thousands of people.

    Now apologetics seems to have reversed itself. We hear about what a tiny number of people must have been here, and that’s why we can’t find any genetic markers. I don’t necessarily think these two defenses are in direct conflict, but it is interesting to note the shift in emphasis.

    I think Kevin’s got a great point about people exaggerating things. It is human nature – I remember if I’d break my curfew in high school, if I got home at 1:03 AM, the next day my mom was yelling at me for getting hom at 2:00 AM.

  12. Mark,

    Sorry not to have been specific about this. Of course, the descendants of Lehi/Ishmael and Mulek are included as the original colonizers. But even if one thinks this group is pretty big, say, 100 people, it still doesn’t add up.

    My only reference for Geoff as to the exclusive rights to the land: 2 Nephi 1:8-9

    8. And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

    9. Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of the land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

    I’m sure there are other references, certainly to Native Americans being direct descendants of the Lamanites.

  13. D.

    Re: the final line in your comment–see the introduction to the Book of Mormon, 2nd paragraph: “and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

    Again, as to the people of Zarahemla, I don’t know how we can assign a number to those who fled Jerusalem and came to this continent. Omni 1:14 ff describes their flight from Jerusalem, their “being brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters” etc.

    From this passage it appears that we cannot know how many of them there were at the beginning, but they did not form part of the Lehi/Ishmael company.

    An interesting thought just occurred to me as I reread 2 Nephi 1:7-8 in the light of Omni 1:14-16. The promise in 2 Nephi is that the land would be preserved from other “nations”. As BofM history progressed, “nations” may well have come to refer to Nephites and Lamanites, but to Lehi, a native of Jerusalem, “other nations” would likely have meant Gentiles. The people of Zarahemla were not Gentiles, and thus are not among those from whom the land would be kept free.

    Of course, this doesn’t answer the questions raised by east Asian characteristics in Amerind populations, etc. I’ll leave the solution of those to others. :)

  14. Kami:

    If you read military history, this is a fairly common occurrence. For example, the Roman Century (if I remember what their main group of heavy infantry was called) was sometimes more sometimes less than 100. The Chinese system, which was often organized in 10’s, 100’s, 1000’s etc. had the same phenomenon. Plus a 10,000 might be a particular Nephite idiom for an army or a allot of people (the Chinese wan meaning 10,000 is sometimes used this way).

    Geoff B. said:

    Do Jaredites have Asian DNA?

    On a related note I have often wondered about temple imagery and signs that pop up in Asian art(try this: http://liny.csie.nctu.edu.tw/buddha.jpg). It is particularly interesting to read the Zhou li, the Rights of the Zhou Dynasty, one of the Classics from this perspective. Could this be from Jeridite influence? Who knows, but it is an interesting possibility.

  15. I’m suspicious that the thread is dead and nobody will read this, but I will post anyway:

    I think we need to have a much more “wait and see” attitude about who was on this continent during the time of the Nephites. A news item from Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040906/full/040906-5.html) tells of evidence that the first people to colonize the American continent were from the south Pacific. The tribe became extinct only 200-300 years ago! Yet typical Native American DNA points to Asia for their source. If people from the south Pacific could live here for thousands of years and not show up significantly in Native American DNA, then the same thing happening with Nephites/Lamanites seems plausible to me.

  16. I recently re-read this part, and it brought to mind the scene in “The Two Towers” when they are arming the young boys and the old men (They’ve seen too few winters or too many). With impending destruction, I’d imagine that the Nehpites would have armed anyone who could stand on their own feet, including women, children and the elderly.
    As well, I think that there is merit in the notion that the term “ten thousand” references a military unit, rather than a fixed number. Like Roman centurions. And then there are ‘ideal numbers’ for a military unit, and then there are the actual numbers.

  17. jpatch, btw, we have the burial grounds and other remnants of the Vikings in America, and no apparent DNA from them either, or the ancient caucasian skeletons that have been found ….

    Geoff, I should note that a trained military unit is more effective without any significant number of green troops in it, though you can use them as skirmishers and for other burn off activities — not exactly the way I’d use my kids if I had any hope of winning. And we have some excellent historical records of “normal” standard numbers for units that had an ideal far enough off that an ideal sized unit would not have mixed well with the actual sized units.

    So yes, if the homeland is being overrun, you arm everyone. But when you have troops in the field, you don’t just add in green non-coms. They don’t manuever, don’t hold formation, don’t understand orders and don’t do much except make good cannon fodder to use for screening and other events where they just stand around and die to get in the way of the other side.

Comments are closed.