The sorts of things the Nephites say about economics–seeing it as dependent on righteousness, lamenting the oppression of the poor, the proliferation of fine-status clothing, and so on, are typical of how rich political elites view upstart market-dominant minorities, who are viewed as grasping and wicked and so on. We have little evidence either way, but what there is is more consistent with elite criticism of the characteristics of a market-dominant minority than the other way around. As has been pointed out above, you get the same sort of critiques as in the Book of Mormon most frequently in the Utah period of the Church, where Mormons were the dominant group who had their status decided by other means than capitalistic wealth, where outsider businessmen were a destructive force, and where church leaders fulminated against them and against those of their own flock who were attracted to this new source of power and prestige.

Omni 1:21 shows that Coriantumr lived with the people of Zarahemla (who arrived after Lehi) for nine months. It does not say how long the people of Zarahemla were there before they found Coriantumr, just that it happened before Mosiah arrived. It is possible that the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations overlapped for several hundred years.

On the side issue of the continuity of ethnic groups though the Christian communal era, note that the list of Lehite subgroups in Jacob 1:13 is the same as that found centuries later in 4 Nephi 38-39. Ethnic and tribal identities that have persisted for 800 years are not going to disappear in a few generations. (Especially since, although tribal rivalries were eliminated during the Christian communal era, there is no indication that they merged through aggressive intermarriage.)

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 Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

Fascinating stuff.

The reason I started thinking about the Nephites in terms of a market-dominant minority was because of the pride cycle, as I wrote in the initial post. It revolves around the prosperity of the Nephites. Additionally, we have this apparent dual-use of the word Nephite, sometimes seeming to refer to anyone who believes in Christ and other times seeming to refer to something more like an ethnicity, as in instances where the Nephites are still a cohesive, identifiable group despite complete rejection of the Gospel. All of this is consistent with the idea of the Nephites as a politically aristocratic elite as well, as you point out. Either way, the Nephites downfall is foreshadowed every time when they begin to grind upon the face of the poor, a situation which to me implies the concentration of wealth and power to the exclusion of an economically suppressed majority.

Nicely said. But he made a good start using the concept as a wedge, and took it to where it went.

I like your review of the text after it is opened though.

Is market-dominant minority the right term for it? That usually refers to Mercurian groups like the Jews who use their trading and intellectual skills to achieve a dominant economic role, but who are usually powerless politically. Frankly, if anything, I think the Nephites could be better read as an Appolonian aristocracy, who think power should be derived from religious and ethnic merit, and who are suspicious of rambunctious, boom-and-bust wealth-maximizing merchants. Probably the best example of market-dominant minorities in the B. of M. would be the priests of King Noah among the Lamanites, who brought the intellectual skills to the table, made the economy boom, and suffered the usual fate of market-dominant minorities.

Mlk is one of the words for king. Was Mulek “king” or did it have another meaning, I’m not sure, but it suddenly makes a lot of sense. There is a civil war on when the Nephites arrive on the scene with the Mulekites. Suddenly, they are in control. No revolutions until the kingdom passes from Benjamin’s line. Then, every shift, there is a challenge. Over and over again by people with “royal” blood (but not the sons of Mosiah).

But, Sherem aside, where did the concubines come from.

If it is just Nephi, Sam, Jacob, Joseph, Zorem and their wives and children, how can you have concubines as a class and not have the women know about it. How many men do you have participating that it takes a public address at the temple rather than a few face-to-face discussions?

BTW, statements such as “such as Lehi’s servants” miss the boat. Lehi’s servants were left behind, though Ishmael’s household could have been very large (remember Abraham’s household, which I’ve mentioned, included 300 servants bred for war from birth, etc.).

Or consider the different structures and cultures of different Lamanite groups.

Anyway, read the text divorced from culture and myth and overlays. It is fascinating and well worth the reading and thought.