Nephi and the "others" - what about diseases?

[_Brother of Mahonri]

There were no "others."

Any "others" who MIGHT have immigrated via a land bridge or boats from Asia were killed off by God in the Noachian flood.

Anyone who says otherwise is a heretic who is arguing that the Mormon scriptures are not "true" and that modern day prophets are not to be trusted.

In other words, NOT an apologist, but an apostate.

[_The Dude]

Here is another way to look at it: suppose a handful of Jerusalemites and their animals came to the Americas in 600BC as described in the Book of Mormon, and they carried a nasty disease (like the smallpox, whooping cough, cholera, etc.) Epidemics can travel faster than explorers. By the time the Jerusalemites expanded out of their niche in Mesoamerica, they would have found the land virtually empty, and they would have interpreted this situation as part of their religious belief that the land would be kept for their inheritance -- while in fact it had just recently been wiped clear by their diseases.

Such a scenario would be very conveinient for apologists who wanted to explain how archaeology shows the land was populated 13,500 years ago, even though the Book of Mormon plainly describes it as empty. On the other hand, genetic evidence says the descendants of people who came 13,500 years ago were still in the great the majority when Europeans showed up, so the point is moot. The land was not emptied and replaced with the descendants of Jerusalemites.

Ultimately, I agree with Beastie that a small number of Jerusalemites cannot be counted on to carry communicable epidemics capable of wiping out a whole continent. It never happened with the Vikings in Greenland and Newfoundland, as far as we know. In contrast, the 15th century Europeans came in much greater numbers over the centuries.

[_Sethbag]

Regarding the vikings, can we be sure that the population density of natives was high enough? Ie: were the vikings planted right in the middle of a millions-strong existing population? Virulent diseases need easy access to reliable transport to a new set of hosts, or else they just kill off their existing hosts and burn out. The Lehites had to have been right in the middle of a vast population with fairly high density, so it makes sense that their diseases would travel rapidly and wipe out large numbers of people.

If the population where the Vikings settled wasn't dense enough, it's possible some tribe in the immediate vicinity would be wiped out and others in the larger area might not catch it before it burned itself out. And the vikings weren't in Newfoundland all that longer either before they themselves died out or left.

I suppose it could be that the Lehites and Mulekites simply didn't have any communicable diseases at all when they showed up, but how likely is that, given that almost any sickness they might have carried, even just the common cold, would probably be something the natives' bodies could not deal with at all? Common cold, influenza, chicken pox, etc. could possibly wipe out tons of people who had antibodies for them.

[_harmony]

There were no "others."

Any "others" who MIGHT have immigrated via a land bridge or boats from Asia were killed off by God in the Noachian flood.

Anyone who says otherwise is a heretic who is arguing that the Mormon scriptures are not "true" and that modern day prophets are not to be trusted.

In other words, NOT an apologist, but an apostate.

Do you have any idea where you are right now? You might be more comfortable in the Celestial Forum.

Because it appears that the only ones that are left are the "others". That's what the whole debate is about.

[_Brother of Mahonri]

There were no "others."

Any "others" who MIGHT have immigrated via a land bridge or boats from Asia were killed off by God in the Noachian flood.

Anyone who says otherwise is a heretic who is arguing that the Mormon scriptures are not "true" and that modern day prophets are not to be trusted.

In other words, NOT an apologist, but an apostate.

Do you have any idea where you are right now? You might be more comfortable in the Celestial Forum.

Because it appears that the only ones that are left are the "others". That's what the whole debate is about.

Whooosh

I will try an explain with small words.

Yes I know where I am, in a thread talking about the impact of some fictional characters on the people who lived in the Americas circa 600 bce.

The elephant in the room, which you as well as most apologists seem to ignore, is the fact if the Book of Mormon were history, that would mean that there were no "others."

The LGT apologists are apostates. They have decided to defend the truthfulness of the scriptures by . . . denying the truthfulness of the scriptures. That is the elephant you are ignoring. I not only find the elephant relevant to this thread, but more interesting than discussing the fictional characters as if they were real and if they were real how they would have impacted . . .a continent that was about to be empty of human life (according to the scriptures). In a hypothetical "what if the Book of Mormon was real" you kind of defeat the purpose if you ignore what the Book of Mormon actually says don't you?

[_Thama]

I suppose it could be that the Lehites and Mulekites simply didn't have any communicable diseases at all when they showed up, but how likely is that, given that almost any sickness they might have carried, even just the common cold, would probably be something the natives' bodies could not deal with at all? Common cold, influenza, chicken pox, etc. could possibly wipe out tons of people who had antibodies for them.

Viruses which are very well-adapted to their hosts (common cold, for example) would likely not kill off native populations: those viruses tend to adapt to a low level of virulence to improve communicability. The subset of diseases which could affect a population the way that smallpox did is rather low: they must still be virulent enough to be lethal to a population unadapted to them, yet not so virulent as to "burn out" quickly. Many estimates actually have measles as being more widespread and having a higher death toll than smallpox during the Spanish conquest: it was less virulent (though still frequently lethal), and spread from Mexico to the Andes faster than the Spanish could.

A small population such as the Nephites probably did not carry any very virulent diseases (hemorrhagic fevers, etc), and may or may not have carried a disease with the mortality of smallpox, typhus, or measles. These kinds of diseases usually are enough to make even those with inborn resistance sick (with a significant mortality rate), and after years of mostly isolated travel, it would be by no means certain that a small group (a dozen or two) would carry any of these diseases.

It seems somewhat more curious to me that the Nephites would not have been affected by native diseases, or that sickness would not be mentioned, at least. The effects of the native diseases on the Spanish were somewhat less dramatic than the reverse, but they certainly didn't escape disease-free upon their arrival.

[_antishock8]

Perhaps... Well, maybe... God probably... We just don't know for sure... I know that.... You're an idiot... The price of tea in China... You just wanted to sin... I don't know, but did you see the BYU game... Homosexuals are evil... I just don't have the time nor the desire to address this issue with you... Me, either... Ha, I knew you weren't really a Mormon... You don't have proof that it didn't... We just have to go on faith...

[_Equality]

Two possibilities:

1. The killing off of the native populations occurred during the time that the slacker Omni was in charge of the plates and he neglected to write about it;

2. There is a lengthy discussion of the other peoples, with complete explanation about how the DNA of the Jerusalemites would be intermixed with them and they would be the ancestors of the American Indians, in the "sealed portion" of the Book of Mormon. In fact, all the troubling questions, be they about horses, chariots, metal smelting, cumoms, submarines, or barley, are answered in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. But the Mormon people just aren't faithful enough to call down a blessing from God to inspire His Prophet, yea, even Thomas S. Monson, to translate said sealed portion.

The answer is to keep praying, paying, and obeying, and leave the questions in that stone box up on the shelf.

[_Runtu]

Perhaps it was the early colonists, their children and grandchildren, etc. who succumbed to New World diseases instead after meeting and incorporating with the locals for the first time?

The limited gene pool of the colonists might not have allowed the effect you're describing.

The interesting thing is that, at least according to Diamond, diseases in the New World tended to be parasitic in nature, not bacterial. When the Europeans arrived, they did pick up the parasitic diseases, but the bacterial and viral diseases they brought with them were far more lethal than anything the Native Americans had to give back. Hence, it is quite unlikely that Nephite contact with native Americans would have decimated the Nephite population. The reverse is almost certainly true: the natives would have succumbed to bacterial diseases brought by the Nephites.

Excellent point, Seth, and one I can't think of a good apologetic answer for. But then I'm kind of slow and evil, anyway.

[_Scottie]

Who says there wasn't a mass pandemic from the Nephites when they arrived?