Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why Lead Lehi to the New World?


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Matthew J. Tandy said:

I think the more complicated problem has to do with Laman and Lemuel.

Nephi kills Laban, because God says it's important that the people not dwindle in unbelief. Of course, they eventually do, but that's significantly later. The point is God repeatedly says he intends to establish a righteous people.

Yet Laman and Lemuel are brought along. After trying several times to kill Nephi, after an Angel they can never seem to remember (along with other big spiritual events these wicked brothers have), I always ponder why in the world God didn't just tell Lehi to let them go. Instead, they come and immediately become a problem upon Lehi's death, trying to kill Nephi and threaten his people to the point Nephi and others have to flee. 

These brothers end up in a land reserved for the righteous.

The point is made that the Lamanites (and other -ites of that line) are used by God to stir up the Nephites to repentance when the screw up. And it occasionally works. Still, I've always been baffled why God brings them along to the Promised Land kicking and screaming and murderous intending. I am sure some of Nephi's descendants would have become wicked on their own. It's all a bit baffling and is one of the questions I'll have to ask when I get to the next side. 

The same reason God put the Israelites smack dab in the middle of or in the way of every superpower in the ancient world. God needs a stick. The question is when the Nephites screwed up who would be God's rod in the New World like his Old World Assyria rod? I think it is also a Promised Land thing. One of the drawbacks/blessings is being under threat to keep you in line. The United States has been a while without one. Probably the cause of many of our problems.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.

We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.

But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?

It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.

Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.

The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.

It's like the Jews coming back to their holy land and reestablishing themselves as Israel in our own time, even though they are not Christian.  God had punished his chosen people for millennia for disobedience, and yet there they are, back in the promised land.  How to account for it?

It is the same for the Lamanites, who are not God's righteous posterity either.  Yet the Book of Mormon is directed very much toward them (read the title page), and they are Israelites, descendants of Manasseh.  Not toward those who are not children of the promise.  The prophecies are very specific, and are not directed at just any tribe of Amerindians.

As for Raiders of the Lost Ark, it probably gave Steven Spielberg (a Jew) some satisfaction to get a little revenge on the Nazis for the Holocaust (even if only in film).

Link to comment

You can ask yourself the same types of questions about why God did just about everything that He did so many things in the Old Testament also. We can only guess and speculate, but we are more likely to be wrong than right on just about any one of them.

Why did not God allow Cain to be killed for slaying his brother Abel, in the old Testament "Eye for an Eye" type of thing?

The question has already been asked in another thread just why God sent Jonah to preach to the city of Ninevah when it was not an Israelite town.

On the story of Lot. Why did not God warn Abraham and Lot about the evil that would be found in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah rather than let the events unfold as they did?

Why did God hide the Children of Israel  in Egypt for four hundred years? Why didn't he just let the prophet Jacob/Israel know that there was going to be a famine and have them prepare for it.?

There are many more. Those are just examples.

And in the New Testament, we all know the story of Saul/Paul who was persecuting the Church and of his miraculous conversion on the way to Damascus. Why did not God do that for all of the Jews. Give all of them a Paul/Alma the Younger experience to set them aright. Paul was doing what he thouht to be right at the time, but Alma the Younger was just raising the devil. Yet he got his course correction.

Why didn't God protect His apostles? There are stories of the apostles being protected. Paul was bitten by a viper with no ill effects. Prison walls were broken down miraculously. Yet. in the end, all of those apostles were eventually killed one way or another and the world was left in spiritual darkness almost 1800 years. Why did God allow that long period of spiritual darkness?

 

I am not actually asking those questions. Just serving them up as examples of things that can send one into madness or unbelief, or whatever, if one tries to make sense of it all.

 

Glenn

Link to comment
21 hours ago, smac97 said:

What do you mean by "discernible?"  Who is doing this "discerning?"  What metrics do you propose should be used for this "discerning?"

 

This is what I mean.

Quote
 

Discernible- Adjective- Able to be discerned; perceptible

There is no visible, detectable, noticeable, perceptible evidence of BoM peoples having existed in the Americas. DNA, archaeology etc.

I'm not trying to make this a thread about BoM evidence because I thought most people accepted there is a dearth of evidence. My question is more about "why"? What was the purpose of sending a people that wouldn't last or leave any evidence of their existence and wouldn't leave any kind of heritage or tradition

 

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
22 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.

We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.

But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?

It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.

Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.

The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.

Hmmm. Well, I am not going to say I have THE answer, but just something to think about. I would say it has something to do with Israel being God's chosen people. This goes beyond God simply sparing Lehi and his family, though. The chosen people are also supposed to be the leven which carries God's covenants to the rest of the world. So to bring his promises to the people of the New World, God brought some of his promised people to them.

Just a thought.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is what I mean.

Discernible- Adjective- Able to be discerned; perceptible

There is no visible, detectable, noticeable, perceptible evidence of BoM peoples having existed in the Americas. DNA, archaeology etc.

Ah.  So DNA and archaeology are the benchmarks for "discerning" the introduction of a tiny number of transplants from Jerusalem into the Americas 2,600 years ago.

This sort of thing is getting old.  The DNA "argument," such as it is, is a zombie.  It rises from the dead and is a piece of fiction that informed, serious-minded people should not take as being at all representative of reality.  Even some of the most virulent critics of the LDS Church are getting tired of it.  Quoth Simon Southerton:

Quote

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later.

And regarding the presence or absence of "evidence" or or against The Book of Mormon derived from "archaeology," I refer you to William Hamblin's Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon.

Quote

My question is more about "why"? What was the purpose of sending a people that wouldn't last or leave any evidence of their existence and wouldn't leave any kind of heritage or tradition

The Abrahamic Covenant may be involved.

And as far as not leaving "any kind of heritage or tradition," try telling that to millions of Latter-day Saints in the Americas and Pacific Islands who look to The Book of Mormon as a source of "heritage."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So DNA and archaeology are the benchmarks for "discerning" the introduction of a tiny number of transplants from Jerusalem into the Americas 2,600 years ago.

This sort of thing is getting old.  The DNA "argument," such as it is, is a zombie.  It rises from the dead and is a piece of fiction that informed, serious-minded people should not take as being at all representative of reality.  Even some of the most virulent critics of the LDS Church are getting tired of it.  Quoth Simon Southerton:

And regarding the presence or absence of "evidence" or or against The Book of Mormon derived from "archaeology," I refer you to William Hamblin's Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon.

The Abrahamic Covenant may be involved.

And as far as not leaving "any kind of heritage or tradition," try telling that to millions of Latter-day Saints in the Americas and Pacific Islands who look to The Book of Mormon as a source of "heritage."

Thanks,

-Smac

What evidence would you discern of BoM peoples?

Although they've been taught it is their heritage it doesn't seem to really be.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What evidence would you discern of BoM peoples?

Although they've been taught it is their heritage it doesn't seem to really be.

The provenance of The Book of Mormon is, in my view, not generally empirically provable or falsifiable.  DNA doesn't really seem to work (see Southerton's comment).  Archaeology doesn't seem to work (see Hamblin's article).  There are some evidences, to be sure.  Mostly textual.  Extrapolations.  Chiasmus.  Nahom.  Olive culture.  Mulek.  Sheum.  Hebraisms.  And so on.  These have been discussed oodles of times (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

The question isn't about the presence or absence of "evidence."  Not really.  The question is really about the probative value of extant evidence.  And on this issue, reasonable minds can and do disagree.  Vigorously.  Hence my previous statement (that "[t]he provenance of The Book of Mormon is ... not generally empirically provable or falsifiable").

It's a matter of faith.  Reason and analysis and discussion are clearly necessary components.  But Moroni's Promise does not say "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would rely principally on DNA and archaeology and other forms of 'evidence' to reach a determination about the truthfulness and divinity of The Book of Mormon."  It says . . . something else.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
20 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Except that the Mulekites and Jaredites became extinct and the people the Spanish found in America and continue to exist now, have no connection to Lehi. (DNA doesn't match)

So Columbus  and the conquistadors would have still found the natives and the same ruins etc as they did because they were not related to Lehi or other BoM peoples.

This explanation would have made much more sense 20 years ago when the church still taught that the BoM peoples  were the primary ancestors of native Americans.

By definition a remnant (as used in the Book of Mormon or genetics) would be very hard to find, but could still function as “leaven.”

Because the Lord determines our bounds and habitations (Acts 11:27), anyone born in the Book of Mormon’s “land of promise” carries the same promises made to Lehi by virtue of their biology, or having incorporated the land’s physical elements into their systems. Traces of these elements are passed on from generation to generation in the human physiology and makeup. In a sense, Lehi’s remnant is not only his personal family seed, but the family seed of any who were nourished by the food and water obtained in the land of promise that was consecrated unto him and of which they partake from pre-conception through their lives. The “other populations” can thus easily be construed as “them who shall be numbered among thy seed.” (2 Nephi 10:19).

ETA; In this way, Lehi and the Book of Mormon people did last, and are thus "visible, detectable, noticeable, perceptible" today -- the traces may be hard to find, but the land of promise from which the traces come is right there in front of us!

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

God needs a stick... I think it is also a Promised Land thing. 

Except God told Nephi his Promised Land was only for the righteous, and if they became wicked they would be destroyed. 

Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael were not righteous by any measure. They are brought in as wicked people with Nephi. 

I agree about the need for a stick. It makes sense. However, it seems Nephi when writing had at times a contradictory view from God about who should be there and who should not. 

Further, since I believe the Lehites came into the land with other inhabitants already around, and we assume those inhabitants were not righteous Israelites, they would have done a fine job of being that stick. Adding Laman and Lemuel in seems to have been an act of self-sabotage.

The only possible explanation I have for it, which is not supported by some of Nephi's writings about messages from heaven regarding who should inhabit the land, is that the Lamanites acted as a sort of buffer between the Nephites and the other inhabitants. Perhaps their war-like nature kept the other city-states from being able to reach and overrun the Nephite settlements. Related, if the Lamanites were fighting on two fronts, it might explain why they were rarely able to do much damage to the Nephite settlements. They would always have to hold some back if they didn't have peace on the non-Nephite borders.

 

Link to comment
On 2/3/2016 at 10:23 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.

We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.

But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?

It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.

Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.

The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.

I like this question a lot. I don't know if I have a perfect answer, but here's some ideas that I have:

1. I'm going to start with the assumption that "Lamanites" in the Book of Mormon (as in the 19th-century translated English text) were clearly intended to refer to all indigenous people in the Americas (and I would presume mestizos as well). I believe this because to me it seems to be the plain reading of the text, and that's what the angel Moroni is reported to have told Joseph Smith when he first appeared to him, and because further revelations to Joseph Smith included in the Doctrine and Covenants use the term in this way. My belief is that God was trying to give the world a revelation about the place of native Americans in his plans, something that the world didn't have before.

2. The Book of Mormon explains why there needs to be a spiritual connection between the Old and New worlds, or in other words why the story of Lehi's family would be relevant to contemporary people of the Americas. I don't see any indication in the text that the point of the book is to explain cultural or genetic ties back to Lehi's family, but rather that it is supposed to be a spiritual or covenantal tie. Remember that with just the Bible there is no indication that God is even aware that the inhabitants of the Americas exist or that they have any importance in his plans. Many Christians after the discovery of the Americas wondered about this and came up with ideas on how the Americas were connected to the Biblical revelation. The solution that the Book of Mormon offers is that they are included within the Abrahamic covenant, that Jesus remembered them ("other sheep I have which are not of this fold"), and that he even visited their continent as well and established his church among them. One of the main teachings of the Book of Mormon is that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (and Lehi), is the God of all nations, that he speaks to all nations, and that through the seed of Abraham all nations are blessed.

3. The Book of Mormon also speaks about the promises that God has for the future of the inhabitants of the New World. Regardless of the historical or genetic connections to Lehi that Americans might or might not have, the Book of Mormon was a revelation meant for our dispensation and was meant to apply to all Americans. So regardless of what you think about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, if you believe that the Book of Mormon is a revelation of God, then you should believe that it represents God's promises to inhabitants of the Americas. These promises include the establishment of Zion on this land, the establishment of freedom and rights, the Indians are to regain their land, and the righteous Gentiles will work together with the indigenous people and become one people. The church that Jesus Christ established among the Nephites will be restored to the land and lead the way in bringing about the fulfillment of these prophecies by bringing the record of the descendants of Lehi to all the people. It will come to pass through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, hand in hand with the scripture of the Old World, the Bible.

4. I don't think that Joseph Smith or any of the early members of the church understood perfectly the details of the Book of Mormon and its connection to history (they obviously didn't have the benefit of DNA studies back then), but I do think that they did a marvelous job of getting the gist of the message God was trying to get them to understand about the importance that the Americas play in God's plans. I would hope that we can continue to have that fervor to bring people to Jesus Christ and bring all nations and people into one in his Gospel. I believe that the Gospel is the only way for us to overcome these great cultural and racial divides that have afflicted humanity. The historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon is an important issue, but not as important as this work that God laid out for us in the Book of Mormon.

To summarize: the story of Lehi is more important as a story for contemporary people to help them understand their place in God's plans than it is as actual history. It's arguably important to believe that Lehi and Sariah were actual people (which I do), but it isn't important to the message of the book how exactly they are related to contemporary people, since they are the spiritual/covenantal patriarch and matriarch of the Americas.

Edited by mapman
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, mapman said:

2. The Book of Mormon explains why there needs to be a spiritual connection between the Old and New worlds, or in other words why the story of Lehi's family would be relevant to contemporary people of the Americas.

With regards to #2, the tie between the Old and New Worlds is on many, many levels and senses, with the involvement of Eden and the New Jerusalem in the New World with Zion from above joining them, and the old Jerusalem.

Zion from above is both an old and a new world. New in relation to the dispensation in which the City was created, and old in relation to the Zion called New Jerusalem.

Eden is the new world in relation to the Creation, and represents the return of old (original, paradisiacal) world in relation to the Millennium (represented by New Jerusalem, which is the new version of the old Zion, combined with the old Zion coming down from above).

A temple will be built in old Jerusalem and in the New Jerusalem; both will be holy cities. “These two cities, one in the land of Zion and one in Palestine, are to become capitals for the kingdom of God during the millennium” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:71).

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

With regards to #2, the tie between the Old and New Worlds is on many, many levels and senses, with the involvement of Eden and the New Jerusalem in the New World with Zion from above joining them, and the old Jerusalem.

Zion from above is both an old and a new world. New in relation to the dispensation in which the City was created, and old in relation to the Zion called New Jerusalem.

Eden is the new world in relation to the Creation, and represents the return of old (original, paradisiacal) world in relation to the Millennium (represented by New Jerusalem, which is the new version of the old Zion, combined with the old Zion coming down from above).

A temple will be built in old Jerusalem and in the New Jerusalem; both will be holy cities. “These two cities, one in the land of Zion and one in Palestine, are to become capitals for the kingdom of God during the millennium” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:71).

I like this a lot. It reminds me of one historian (can't remember who right now) who said that Joseph Smith's revelations about Eden and Zion being in the Americas was a way to make this land sacred like we think of places in the Bible as being sacred. I think that each part of the earth is sacred, especially to the people that will receive an eternal inheritance in that place.

It is reassuring to me that God loves and cares for all his people. Of course most people believe that, but the Book of Mormon and modern revelation make it clear that it is more than like, "oh yeah, God loves you guys too!" and more like, "look at all the cool stuff that God has done for your people, and all the cool stuff he has planned for you!" Many have said that Columbus discovering America was the most important moment in human history. I don't know about it being the most important, but it certainly was one of the most important, and so it is reassuring to see that the Book of Mormon reveals that all these hugely important events not mentioned in the Bible were also part of God's plans for uniting his children in Jesus Christ. It was hardly all good stuff that resulted, but it seems to me that it was a necessary event for humankind to become what we are today, and what we can become in the future: Zion.

Edited by mapman
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, mapman said:

I like this a lot. It reminds me of one historian (can't remember who right now) who said that Joseph Smith's revelations about Eden and Zion being in the Americas was a way to make this land sacred like we think of places in the Bible as being sacred. I think that each part of the earth is sacred, especially to the people that will receive an eternal inheritance in that place.

It is reassuring to me that God loves and cares for all his people. Of course most people believe that, but the Book of Mormon and modern revelation make it clear that it is more than like, "oh yeah, God loves you guys too!" and more like, "look at all the cool stuff that God has done for your people, and all the cool stuff he has planned for you!" Many have said that Columbus discovering America was the most important moment in human history. I don't know about it being the most important, but it certainly was one of the most important, and so it is reassuring to see that the Book of Mormon reveals that all these hugely important events not mentioned in the Bible were also part of God's plans for uniting his children in Jesus Christ. It was hardly all good stuff that resulted, but it seems to me that it was a necessary event for humankind to become what we are today, and what we can become in the future: Zion.

In that spirit, I’d like to reference the “new song”  I was alluding to in my previous post:

 

99 The Lord hath brought again Zion;

The Lord hath redeemed his people, Israel,

According to the election of grace,

* Which was brought to pass by the faith

And covenant of their fathers.

 

  100 The Lord hath redeemed his people;

And Satan is bound and time is no longer.

The Lord hath gathered all things in one.

The Lord hath brought down Zion from above.

The Lord hath brought up Zion from beneath.

 

  101 The earth hath travailed and brought forth her strength;

And truth is established in her bowels;

And the heavens have smiled upon her;

And she is clothed with the glory of her God;

For he stands in the midst of his people.

 

  102 Glory, and honor, and power, and might,

Be ascribed to our God; for he is full of mercy,

Justice, grace and truth, and peace,

Forever and ever, Amen.

 

* It took someone like Lehi to be transplanted from the old to new world to be a key link in the chain of events that brings this to pass. And aren’t we all entering the chain as a new world from an old world when we are baptized?

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...
On 2/3/2016 at 10:23 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.

We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.

But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?

It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.

Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.

The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.

zombie thread.

 

There is no disconnect if a Nephite diaspora (prior to their civilization's destruction) spared a branch of Nephites for the eventual restoration of the message from their ancestors.

Nephites in Europe solves that dilemma thru Hagoth.

Brings D&C 3 and D&C 2 full circle.

Edited by hagoth7
Link to comment
On 2/3/2016 at 10:23 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.

You are approaching this from the perspective that Lehi was chosen specifically for our benefit today.  But you are not considering the value of the "promised land" to Lehi.  Couldn't it have been that Lehi was led to the promised land for Lehi's sake?

It didn't have to be Lehi, the BoM makes it clear that it was a promised land conditional upon Lehi's faithfulness (1 Nephi 7:13).  That makes it clear that Lehi's arrival was conditional upon Lehi's righteousness, rather than being something entirely for our benefit only.   Lehi was led to the promised land to protect Lehi and his family from the destruction of Jerusalem.  It says over and over and over, "in as much as you are faithful, it shall be a land of promise unto you".  It seems clear to me that the value of Lehi's involvement was for Lehi's benefit more than ours.  Moses was also led to a land of promise.  We could easily ask, Why Moses?  Why didn't the Lord just use the people in the land at the time to write the scriptures?  Moses was chosen because of his righteousness and for Moses's benefit.  I suppose it was the same for Lehi.  In fact, 1 Nephi 17 makes this comparison of Moses's journey and Lehi's journey. 

Keep in mind, it wasn't just Lehi either.  Here is what is said about the promised land to a group that arrived before Lehi:

Quote

 

Ether 2

7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

 

 

Link to comment

:zombie:

Quote

Pogi- You are approaching this from the perspective that Lehi was chosen specifically for our benefit today.  But you are not considering the value of the "promised land" to Lehi.  Couldn't it have been that Lehi was led to the promised land for Lehi's sake?

Fair enough. But isn't the Book of Mormon itself intended for a future audience? The purpose of the BoM was to be another testament of Jesus Christ to the Lamanites (presumably native Americans) as well as the gentile. The events of the BoM seem to be put into motion and recorded for a future benefit, not for Lehi's.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

:zombie:

Fair enough. But isn't the Book of Mormon itself intended for a future audience? The purpose of the BoM was to be another testament of Jesus Christ to the Lamanites (presumably native Americans) as well as the gentile. The events of the BoM seem to be put into motion and recorded for a future benefit, not for Lehi's.

Yes, the BoM is for our day, and you are right that it didn’t need to be Lehi’s decendents to write another testament of Christ.  It could have been anybody.  And it would have been someone else had Lehi not remained faithful.

It just seems rather self-centric to assume that everything that happened to those who lived over 2000 years ago was purely for our benefit and had nothing to do with Lehi’s personal righteousness and value.  Lehi was primarily led to the Americas as a blessing to him for his righteousness, and to avoid the destruction of Jerusalem.  Let us keep in mind that Lehi was preserved for Lehis sake.

Link to comment
On 2/3/2016 at 11:54 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Stop! Stop right now...it was this kind of thinking that led me out of the church. It's better to just accept the story as presented and not seek answers to your nagging questions...they could inevitably lead you some place you may not want to go...

The idea that those who were saved among the Nephite people might also be a reason to set up that dispensation? So the fact that their presence there is unimportant to you personally is a reason it makes no sense. Who would have thought someone so self-absorbed could leave the gospel behind? Boggles the mind.

Link to comment
On 2/3/2016 at 10:23 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.

We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.

But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?

It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.

Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.

The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.

I honestly never thought of this. Mind blown.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

:zombie:

Fair enough. But isn't the Book of Mormon itself intended for a future audience? The purpose of the BoM was to be another testament of Jesus Christ to the Lamanites (presumably native Americans) as well as the gentile. The events of the BoM seem to be put into motion and recorded for a future benefit, not for Lehi's.

For all I can remember I (or someone else) probably already said this, but what about the brass plates?  Were they necessary for the BOM to come together?  Also, genealogically speaking, we could also ask whether or not it was necessary for Manassha's (i'm totally making up that spelling) or some house of Israel lineage to be involved.  It seems like God is pretty clear that the gospel must come to gentiles through that lineage.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...