Every so often I take a look at what passes for footnotes at the Interpreter. Here is text from the first paragraph, and footnote 2:
second, “Were indigenous populations present or absent on the arrival of the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites (empty continent versus inhabited continent theories)?” has been largely resolved for most researchers, who acknowledge multiple Book of Mormon textual references that demonstrate the existence of preexisting populations. [footnote]2.
Footnote 2
2. See 2 Nephi 5:5; Jacob 2:23−24; Jarom 1:6, Alma 2:24, 28; 43:51; 49:6; 51:11; Helaman 1:19, 6:6, 7:1−2. See also Matthew Roper, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,” FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 225–75; Matthew Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 15, no. 2 (June 2003): 91–128; John L. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 1–34; Ugo A. Perego and Jayne E. Ekins, “Is Decrypting the Genetic Legacy of America’s Indigenous Populations Key to the Historicity of the Book of Mormon?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 237–79.
Here are the first four references in footnote 2, ostensibly in support of the idea that Book of Mormon people ran into indigenous groups:
Ne 5:5 And it came to pass that the Lord did awarn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
5 And now, behold, two hundred years had passed away, and the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land. They observed to akeep the law of Moses and the bsabbath day holy unto the Lord. And they cprofaned not; neither did they dblaspheme. And the elaws of the land were exceedingly strict.
6 And they were scattered upon amuch of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more bnumerous than were they of the Nephites; and they loved cmurder and would drink the dblood of beasts.
24 Behold, we followed the acamp of the bAmlicites, and to our great astonishment, in the land of Minon, above the land of Zarahemla, in the course of the land of cNephi, we saw a numerous host of the Lamanites; and behold, the Amlicites have joined them;
28 Nevertheless, the Nephites being astrengthened by the hand of the Lord, having prayed mightily to him that he would deliver them out of the hands of their enemies, therefore the Lord did hear their cries, and did strengthen them, and the Lamanites and the Amlicites did fall before them.
Utter. Fail. Not one of those scripture passages supports the idea put forward. At best, the Amlici year verse can be read as ambiguous, but not when you read the preceding verses about their start. If the author wants to argue the idea, great, but footnotes are supposed to provide legitimate and recognized supports of your claim, not imaginary argument hidden away, with arbitrary assumptions slathered over the top to hide the facts.
That’s where I stopped. The Interpreter, as usual, is doing a “peerless” job of peer review.