A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but that still seems more inferential than actually "textual."  

The text clearly says: "And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been." Ether 2:5

So we know that at least for the Jaredites around 2500-2000 BCE, there was no pre-existing population in their promised land, and we know that the Jaredites quickly became a civilization of millions. So why do we not find anything that resembles Jaredite DNA in ancient burials dating to the Jaredite timeframe of 2500 BCE to 600 BCE? They would have been the only people there according to the text, and there were numerous Jaredites (most agree at least a million or more) in the text, so why can't we find a signal that represents a Jaredite civilization in the Americas? The apologetic is that the empty quarter refers to the wilderness and not the New World and that we don't know what Jaredite DNA looks like. That's fair, but that implies Jaredite DNA is indistinguishable from the DNA of indigenous Americans that have been living in America since 15,000-20,000 years ago. That wouldn't be the case if they migrated from ANE into a population that had been isolated from ANE for 15 millennia. There would be a distinguishable Jaredite signal within the indigenous signal

There is an interesting unique signal of DNA that pops up among the indigenous populations of South America that most closely resembles the Onge people, that I have argued could represent Jaredite DNA, but there are also problems with that solution

Edited March 25 by Zosimus

[Calm]

How can it be the entire New World when “quarter” means part, not whole? (And not necessarily 1/4)

Quote

5. A region in the hemisphere or great circle; primarily, one of the four cardinal points; as the four quarters of the globe; but used indifferently for any region or point of compass. From what quarter does the wind blow? Hence, 

6. A particular region of a town, city or country; as all quarters of the city; in every quarter of the country or of the continent. Hence.

 

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Quarter

Edited March 26 by Calm

[Zosimus]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

How can it be the entire New World when “quarter” means part, not whole? (And not necessarily 1/4)

I can't really make sense of the phrasing either, because a literal meaning would be that no man had ever been anywhere in the world after the flood and the tower. All quarters were uninhabited. So maybe its talking about antediluvian populations? 

Either way, a literal reading of the text from the view of a 400 AD compiler would be that the entire New World was empty, there would have been noone there between the flood and the arrival of the Jaredites, unless another group left the tower and beat them to it. But that also wouldn't explain how there's no unique DNA signal that appears within indigenous populations around 2000 BCE.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

because a literal meaning

That’s not what the “literal meaning” was when Joseph dictated it.

It was ‘And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that particular region where there never had man been.’

Ah…sorry…I didn’t process you were talking post flood.  I just don’t think of the flood as global anymore, so it blew past me.

I need to check something.

added:  I am relatively certain this is the only reference to Noah’s flood in Ether and while it suggests turbulent waters at least somewhat deep, it says nothing of the extent (covering the entire planet).

Quote

 

And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being tight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the ark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters.

How can we be sure they understood Noah’s experience the same way it is usually described today (the entire planet covered)?

In checking out exactly what is said, I notice Moroni limits the Jaredites to  “inhabitants….upon the face of this north country”.  

Moroni believes the Jews have this creation info, but seems he is assuming here, rather than knowing.  I wonder if he checked the brass plates, can’t remember what’s on them except the genealogy of Lehi.

Quote

2 And I take mine account from the twenty and four plates which were found by the people of Limhi, which is called the Book of Ether.

3 And as I suppose that the first part of this record, which speaks concerning the creation of the world, and also of Adam, and an account from that time even to the great tower, and whatsoever things transpired among the children of men until that time, is had among the Jews—…

from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered.

I don’t think we should assume either the Jaredite plates and/or Moroni understood the flood to be global even if they believed it was massive.  Even if the story/experience was shared by the ancestors of the Jews and the ancestors of the Jaredites, we don’t know how they each taught it (many cultures have flood stories, lots of overlap in some, but not all in the ones I have seen, I was really into reading different countries’ mythology back in my youth and my middle school has the best collection of at least a dozen books that covered the globe).

I don’t have the books and these weren’t the ones I read about it anyway, so using Chat to offer summaries.  I am sorry I don’t have better.  (I really don’t like using Chat summaries for new, not commonly known or in public documents easily checked information.)

Will try and see if I can find quotes from these sources online if you would prefer.

Quote

The Bible with Sources Revealed

Friedman shows that Genesis is compiled from earlier sources (J and P).

These sources reflect ancient Near Eastern cosmology, not modern geography.

Implication: “all the earth” refers to the humanly inhabited world known to the authors, not the globe.

The Lost World of the Flood

Explicit argument: the flood is described in functional, theological terms, not modern scientific ones.

Key claim:
The text communicates a world-destroying event from the narrator’s perspective, not a statement about total planetary coverage.

Walton (an evangelical scholar) still concludes the narrative is not about global hydrology.

 

2. Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Evidence

The Epic of Gilgamesh

Atrahasis Epic

These are the closest textual parallels to Genesis.

They describe catastrophic floods in Mesopotamia.

No indication the authors were describing the entire planet—rather:

The flood wipes out “all mankind” within their world

Geography is implicitly regional (river valley civilization)

Scholarly takeaway:

Genesis inherits a tradition where “total destruction” is rhetorical totality, not geographic precision.

So I don’t think you should make assumptions of what the literal reading is based on information you have gotten from outside the text.

PS:  I have tried to be careful to avoid assumptions about how scriptures were meant by the earliest participants, authors/scribes and readers/listeners since I learned the early commentaries of the Jews did not have the earth splitting up into continents, that such an interpretation didn’t pop up till much, much later.  I learned that in my teens on reading an anthology of Jewish mythology way before I got into apologetics.  It had nothing to do with trying to defend the scriptures, only trying to understand them (I couldn’t get anyone to engage with me about religious beliefs besides my mom—she wasn’t really into those kinds of things, but more the psychology and spiritual side—until my mid 20s and even then minimal, really didn’t get going until ‘95 when I read FARMS books on my laptop while in Russia, mid30s; before 2001 no one cared what I chose to believe about scriptures as I was too shy to speak in front of other adults and I kept things traditional as a Primary teacher, so I chose what made sense to me given the info I found).

Edited March 26 by Calm

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

The text clearly says: "And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been." Ether 2:5

So "that quarter" of "the wilderness" = all land everywhere in the Americas?  

And isn't "the wilderness" typically not populated (traversed through, perhaps, but not settled or lived in)?

Or does the reference to a portion ("that quarter") of "the wilderness" "where there never had man been" possibly indicate that people had been in other "quarters" of "the wilderness"?

And Ether 2:5 is likely dated to, what, about 2,200 B.C.?  Perhaps population locations were different then as compared to when Lehi's group arrived?  The Jaredites and Nephites apparently occupied overlapping but largely distinct regions separated by the "narrow neck of land," with one key point of geographic convergence, namely the Hill Cumorah.

41 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

So we know that at least for the Jaredites around 2500-2000 BCE, there was no pre-existing population in their promised land,

We "know this"?  Are you sure?

41 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

and we know that the Jaredites quickly became a civilization of millions.

We "know" this also?  Are you sure?

I asked Grok: "Trace the population of the Jaredites per the text of the Book of Ether."  The response:

Quote

Here is a clear, verse-by-verse trace of the Jaredite population strictly according to the text of the Book of Ether (no external assumptions or modern estimates).

1. Founding / Arrival Period (Ether 1–6)

• The group begins very small: Jared, his brother (the Brother of Jared), their families, and “some others and their families” (Ether 1:34; 6:16).
• They cross the ocean in eight barges.
• No specific headcount is given, but the language implies a modest founding colony of several dozen adults and their children (roughly 20–40 adults + families).

Key verse: Ether 6:18 – After landing, “they began to be fruitful and to multiply and to wax exceedingly strong in the land.”

2. Early Generations – Rapid Growth (Ether 6–9)

• The people “were blessed and prospered” under righteous kings (Orihah, Emer, Coriantum, etc.).
• Qualitative statements only: “the people began to be numerous” (Ether 6:18); “the people had multiplied” (Ether 9:15–16); “the people of the land were blessed” and grew under righteous rule.
• No exact numbers, but the text portrays steady, strong growth for several generations.

Key verse: Ether 9:16 – During Emer’s reign the people “multiplied exceedingly.”

3. Middle Period – Division, Secret Combinations, and Wars (Ether 10–13)

• Population is now large enough to support kingdoms, cities, and major conflicts.
• References to “many people,” “exceedingly great armies,” and civil wars that kill large numbers (e.g., Ether 11:4–7; 13:15–18).
• The text implies a substantial population capable of fielding armies in the tens of thousands, but still no concrete totals.

Key verse: Ether 10:19–21 – Under King Lib the people “were spread upon all the face of the land” and built “great cities.”

4. Final Period – Peak Population and Total Destruction (Ether 14–15)

This is the only place the text gives specific large numbers.

• Ether 15:2 (Coriantumr speaking):

  “He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.”

  This is the single most explicit population-related number in the entire book. It refers to cumulative casualties on Coriantumr’s side alone before the final battle at Cumorah.

• Ether 15:8, 15 – Both Coriantumr and Shiz gather “all the people upon the face of the land” for the final battle at the hill Cumorah. The text presents this as essentially the entire remaining Jaredite population.

• The final battles result in the near-total annihilation of the Jaredite nation. Only Coriantumr and the prophet Ether survive (Ether 15:33–34).

Summary Timeline (Text Only)

Period	Approximate Scale (per text)	Key Verses
Arrival	Small founding colony (dozens of adults + families)	Ether 1:34; 6:16–18
Early generations	Rapid multiplication; becomes “numerous”	Ether 6:18; 9:15–16
Middle kingdoms	Large enough for cities and major armies	Ether 10–13
Final wars (Coriantumr/Shiz)	Millions involved; ~2 million slain on one side	Ether 15:2
End of nation	Total destruction except 2 survivors	Ether 15:33–34

Bottom line from the text alone: The Jaredites began as a very small group and grew into a large civilization capable of fielding armies in the millions by the final generation. The only explicit large number given is the “two millions” slain before the final battle at Cumorah (Ether 15:2). The text never gives a precise total population figure, but it clearly portrays a numerous people whose numbers ultimately led to their complete destruction in civil war.

I followed up: "Is this population growth feasible if the only people in the 'land northward' were the Jaredites? Or is it more likely that the "millions" eventually occurred through mingling with other peoples in the area?"

The response:

Quote

Yes — the population growth described in Ether becomes demographically implausible if the Jaredites were the only people in the “land northward.”

The text itself makes the “millions” far more believable under a mingling/assimilation model than under a strict “empty land” model.

1. What the Text Actually Requires

• Founding group: A small colony of several dozen adults + their families (Ether 1:34; 6:16–20). Conservative estimate: ~30–60 adults.
• Time span: Roughly 1,600–2,000 years from arrival (~2200 B.C.) until the final destruction at Cumorah.
• Final scale: ~2 million people slain on Coriantumr’s side alone before the last battle (Ether 15:2), plus “all the people upon the face of the land” gathered at Cumorah (Ether 15:8, 15).

2. Pure Natural Growth from the Small Founding Group

Even using very generous pre-industrial assumptions:

• High fertility (average 6–7 surviving children per woman),
• Low mortality,
• No major plagues or famines for centuries,

the maximum realistic sustained annual growth rate for an isolated population is roughly 1.0–1.5% per year over long periods.

Starting with ~50 people and growing at 1.25% annually for 1,800 years yields only about 300,000–400,000 people at peak — nowhere near the millions implied by Ether 15:2.

To reach 2+ million casualties you would need sustained growth rates closer to 2%+ per year for 1,500+ years. That level of growth is historically unprecedented in any pre-industrial society without massive immigration or absorption of outsiders.

3. The Text Itself Leaves Room for Mingling

The Book of Ether never claims:

• “The land was empty when we arrived,”
• “We were the only people in the land northward,” or
• “No other humans existed here.”

It simply tells the story of the Jaredite lineage and their covenant people. The language (“the people of the land,” “all the people upon the face of the land”) is consistent with the Jaredites eventually absorbing or ruling over other groups already present.

Conclusion

• Pure Jaredite-only growth (no other peoples) → Not realistically feasible. The numbers in Ether 15:2 become extremely difficult to explain without extraordinary (and historically unattested) fertility/mortality rates sustained for centuries.
• Mingling with pre-existing peoples → Far more plausible. The “millions” can be reached through steady natural growth plus gradual absorption of other populations already in the land northward — exactly the model that most demographic analyses of the Book of Mormon ultimately adopt.

The text itself is silent on the question, so both readings are technically possible. However, when you examine the population numbers strictly as written, the mingling-with-others explanation is the only one that fits comfortably within realistic ancient demography.

FWIW.

41 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

So why do we not find anything that resembles Jaredite DNA in ancient burials dating to the Jaredite timeframe of 2500 BCE to 600 BCE?

Likely for the same reasons we don't find "Nephite" DNA.

Also, what would "Jaredite DNA" look like, and how do we know that?

41 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

They would have been the only people there according to the text,

Only if "that quarter" of "the wilderness" = the entirety of "the land northward."

That's a pretty giant leap in logic and reasoning.  And it's not in the text.

41 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

The apologetic is that the empty quarter refers to the wilderness and not the New World and that we don't know what Jaredite DNA looks like.

What is the non-apologetic assessment of the text?

41 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

That's fair, but that implies Jaredite DNA is indistinguishable from the DNA of indigenous Americans that have been living in America since 15,000-20,000 years ago.

Well, no.  Again, see Ugo Perrigo's analysis here: 

Finding Lehi in America through DNA Analysis

The abstract (emphasis added) :

Quote

The Book of Mormon begins with Lehi and his family leaving Jerusalem, making their way through the desert, crossing the sea, and eventually arriving somewhere in the Americas. Among those who are familiar with this narrative, there are some that have assumed the continent was uninhabited at their arrival.  If this were true, then all Native Americans should be descendants from Book of Mormon peoples. However, is this an accurate assumption? A closer reading of the scriptures and recent scientific discoveries have shown that this interpretation could be too narrow. Genetic studies have been able to successfully describe broad population trends, and DNA collected from Native Americans revealed their origins in ancient Asia. These results do not necessarily mean that Lehi and his family never existed but only that whatever small genetic contribution they made to the whole indigenous population of the Americas has not been, or cannot be, identified by modern science. A DNA approach cannot prove or disprove the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon or address the genetics of those who traveled with Lehi to the “promised land.”[1] Those who declare otherwise disregard the complexities and constraints of DNA research in population studies.

Do you dispute this?  If so, could you lay out your reasoning?  I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

Prompt: Please review @smac97’s response to my earlier post. 

When you do so, please start by looking at the book's core message about the land of promise. Can you list, say, 12 scriptural references from 12 different books within the Book of Mormon that describe and restate the land covenant, which chronologically first appears in Ether 2:5–12. I'd like you to demonstrate whether or not this is really a core idea that permeates the book.

In the book’s own terms, who are the covenanted people, and what is the Land of Promise? Are these ideas central to the text, and does Smac incorporate these ideas into his arguments with weight that is commensurate with their importance in the Book of Mormon? Also, does Smac offer one clear, falsifiable reading of the text, or does he shift among different theories depending on what problem he is trying to solve? Given that he practices land and title law, consider whether he is taking the covenant’s operative language as seriously as he would in any other instrument.

Quote

Yes. The land covenant is a core idea, not a side theme.

Here are 12 references from 12 different Book of Mormon books that restate it in one form or another. I am using “land covenant” broadly but still textually: God gives a chosen land; the covenanted people prosper there if obedient; if wicked they are cut off, scattered, or lose their inheritance.

1. Ether 2:7–12
   The first chronological statement of the covenant. This land is “choice above all other lands”; those who serve God may possess it; those who reject him are swept off.

2. 1 Nephi 2:20–21
   Nephi is promised: if he keeps the commandments, he will “prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise.”

3. 2 Nephi 1:5–9, 20
   Lehi explicitly says they have obtained “a land of promise,” “choice above all other lands,” and that if they keep God’s commandments they shall prosper, but if not they shall be cut off.

4. Jacob 2:12
   Jacob calls it “this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed forever.”

5. Enos 1:10
   The Lord says: “I will visit thy brethren according to their diligence in keeping my commandments. I have given unto them this land, and it is a holy land.”

6. Jarom 1:9
   The prophets warn that “inasmuch as ye will keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land.”

7. Omni 1:6
   The same covenant formula is repeated almost verbatim: if they do not keep the commandments, they shall not prosper in the land.

8. Mosiah 1:7
   Benjamin warns that if his sons transgress and lose the records, they will “dwindle in unbelief” and be like the Lamanites. The covenant logic is the same: obedience preserves covenant identity and standing in the land.

9. Alma 36:30
   Alma says he knows that “inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land.”

10. Helaman 12:1–2
    Mormon generalizes the principle: whenever people remember the Lord, he prospers them; this is explicitly tied to the commandment/prosper-in-the-land pattern.

11. 3 Nephi 20:14, 22
    Jesus says, “this people will I establish in this land” in fulfillment of covenant promises, and calls the land their inheritance.

12. Mormon 5:19–20
    Mormon addresses the future remnant as descendants of Jacob who must repent and come to Christ to reenter the covenant story of their fathers. This is the late-book covenant frame for the people tied to the record’s purpose.

If you want a 13th, the Title Page is not a numbered “book,” but it may be the most programmatic of all: the record is to show the remnant of the house of Israel what the Lord did for their fathers and “that they may know the covenants of the Lord.”

So yes, this clearly permeates the text.

On the book’s own terms, who are the covenanted people?
Primarily the house of Israel as represented in this record by the Lehites, later joined by the Mulekites, with the Lamanites presented as the surviving remnant to whom the record is especially addressed. The book’s own language is not “a tiny Near Eastern strand buried somewhere inside a much larger unrelated population.” Its own language is covenant-remnant language: fathers, seed, inheritance, remnant, restoration.

And what is the Land of Promise?
In the book’s own rhetoric, it is not merely “some spot somewhere in the Americas.” It is the divinely granted inheritance-land associated with these covenant peoples and their posterity. It is a sacred land with operative terms attached: obedience, prosperity, protection, possession; disobedience, curse, scattering, destruction.

Those ideas are absolutely central to the text.

Now to Smac.

His strongest point is a limited one: he is right that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly say the land was empty when Lehi arrived. He repeatedly presses that point: the text is “largely silent,” “does not claim the land was empty,” and “does not require the land to be empty.” He also argues that lineage need not equal detectable genetics, invoking identity, adoption, and covenantal lineage rather than strict modern DNA categories.

That is a real point. Silence is not denial.

But in my view he does not give the land covenant anything like the weight it deserves.

Why not? Because the book is not merely silent demographic space plus a few named migrants. It is a covenant narrative. The title page states the purpose in covenant terms, and the record repeatedly defines the people and the land through that covenant. Yet Smac’s handling of the issue is mostly defensive and subtractive:

He says the book is “not an anthropological or sociological or cultural treatise.”

That is true, but it is also a dodge if overused. The criticism is not that the Book of Mormon fails to be a modern anthropology textbook. The criticism is that it very much does present a theological-historical account of a covenant people in a covenant land. If that is the book’s core architecture, then demographic minimization cannot just be waved away by saying the text is not an anthropology manual.

He also says the text is “largely silent either way” about a vast pre-existing population, while also insisting Lehi’s party was probably only 25–50 people and their DNA would have been immediately diluted upon intermarriage.

That move is possible, but it is doing apologetic work that the text itself does not do. The more he leans on dilution into a large preexisting population, the more the book’s own covenant rhetoric starts to thin out. If the Lamanites are the covenant remnant to whom the book is addressed, and if the land is repeatedly promised to that remnant and its seed, then reducing that seed to a tiny, effectively untraceable thread inside a much larger unrelated population does not sit comfortably with the book’s own way of talking.

And yes, he does appear to shift frameworks depending on the problem he is solving.

When the issue is DNA, he emphasizes:

• tiny founding group,

• large surrounding population,

• rapid dilution,

• covenant lineage not equal to genetics.

When the issue is textual expectations, he emphasizes:

• the book is not a cultural treatise,

• the text is largely silent,

• critics are reading assumptions into it.

When the issue is tension between the record and expected archaeological/cultural signals, he is open to saying Mormon may have had “only a limited understanding” of earlier cultural elements.

That is not one clear reading. It is a cluster of fallback positions.

Each one can be defended in isolation. Together, they look less like a stable interpretation and more like a flexible harmonization strategy:

• silence when silence helps,

• assimilation when DNA helps,

• covenant identity when genetics hurts,

• historian limitation when cultural mismatch hurts.

That is why I do not think he offers one clean, falsifiable reading of the text.

On your land-and-title analogy: I think that is a fair pressure test.

If a lawyer were reading an operative land instrument, he would not treat the core granting language as incidental while focusing on ambiguities around unstated third parties. He would start with the actual grant, the named beneficiaries, the conditions, and the consequences of breach.

The Book of Mormon’s operative language is full of exactly that kind of material:

• this is a choice land,

• given to a specified covenant people,

• for them and their seed,

• under stated conditions,

• with possession/prosperity for obedience,

• and loss/scattering/destruction for disobedience.

Smac is right to notice what the instrument does not explicitly say. But I do not think he gives sufficient weight to what it does say over and over.

So my bottom-line judgment is this:

Smac has a valid narrow rebuttal to the claim that the Book of Mormon explicitly requires an empty hemisphere. It does not.

But as an interpretation of the book’s center of gravity, his reading is weak.

The Book of Mormon’s center of gravity is covenantal and territorial. It is about a named remnant, a promised land, inheritance, prosperity, loss, scattering, and latter-day restoration. On those terms, the natural reading is not that the Lehites became a tiny, rapidly submerged lineage whose covenant relevance survives mostly as an abstraction. The natural reading is that they are the covenant people whose story defines the land.

And on “multiplied”: in ordinary Book of Mormon usage, it means became numerous as a people in the land. It does not naturally mean “persisted as a tiny genealogical thread while being demographically overwhelmed by others the text never meaningfully identifies.” That latter reading is possible only by importing a model into the text, not by taking the phrase in its normal narrative force.

So if I were arbitrating the dispute plainly:

Smac’s model is a possible rescue model.
It is not the strongest reading of the Book of Mormon’s own covenant language.
And he does not weight the land covenant as heavily as the text itself does.

 

[Analytics]

Prompt: Could you rewrite the translated title page of the Book of Mormon so that it accurately reflects what @smac97 thinks actually happened and accurately reflects the real relationship between Native Americans and the characters in the Book?

A record of a small colony of Israelites who came to some limited part of the Americas, and of their descendants, who at some point mixed extensively with much larger preexisting populations already living there;

Written chiefly as an account of internal conflicts among a covenant-bearing lineage whose history may not have represented more than a thin cultural and genealogical layer within a much broader native world;

Which is to show unto a surviving mixed population in the latter days that some unknown fraction of their ancestry may include remnants of that small colony, though not in any principal or clearly identifiable sense;

And also to the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations;

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men working with limited knowledge of the peoples around them; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may perhaps be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Prompt: Could you rewrite the translated title page of the Book of Mormon so that it accurately reflects what @smac97 thinks actually happened and accurately reflects the real relationship between Native Americans and the characters in the Book?

A record of a small colony of Israelites

Actually, we also have the Mulekites and the Jaredites.  So that would be three small groups.

Are you suggesting that there is any reading of the text for some contrary proposition?

Also, expecting the Title Page of The Book of Mormon to emphasize the small number of Nephites is sort of like expecting the New Testament to emphasize and characterize Jerusalem as a city in a relatively insignificant backwater Roman province.  It is unserious to frame these narratives in this way.

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

who came to some limited part of the Americas,

Well, yes.  A small group migrating together in one or a few boats would very likely not land in vastly disparate locations in the Americas, but rather in a "limited part" of it.

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and of their descendants, who at some point mixed extensively with much larger preexisting populations already living there;

Although factually reflective, I don't think this would be an appropriate part of the Title Page.  It speaks to some presuppositions about the text, rather than to the intended point and purpose of the text as set forth in the Title Page, in Mormon's interpolated remarks, Nephi's remarks, and so on.

If I were to write an article intended for publication in the Utah Bar Journal (as I have done several times), and
if the topic of the article was about, say, the statute of limitations for nonjudicial foreclosures in Utah, and
if the article was intended mostly to help attorneys understand the issues relating to this topic, and
if I were to entirely omit from the article any commentary about my family or my religious beliefs, and
if the editors of the Journal asked me to write a brief abstract of the content and purpose of the article, and
if I then wrote the abstract and included in it extraneous comments about my family and my religious beliefs, then
wouldn't that be kinda weird?

Again:

• The text "presents the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites as the peoples whose story is being told, but it does not claim they were the only inhabitants or that the land was empty."
• "Joseph Smith—History 1:34 (Moroni’s words) says the plates give 'an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.' Again, 'an account" of certain former inhabitants—not 'the complete history of every person who ever lived here.'"
• "The entire record is a lineage history—a family/national chronicle of these specific groups and their descendants. It is not presented as a comprehensive ethnography or census of the entire hemisphere."
• "{W}hen read strictly on its own content and without importing modern expectations or Church position statements, the text is agnostic on the presence or absence of other populations. It allows both interpretations and does not require either."

Why would the Title Page include references to topics not addressed in the text?

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Written chiefly as an account of internal conflicts among a covenant-bearing lineage whose history may not have represented more than a thin cultural and genealogical layer within a much broader native world;

Again, this is weird.  Why would the Title Page of a record engraved on metal plates, in a process specifically characterized and difficult and time-consuming and written so as to economize on space, then waste portions of that space to explain things the text is not about?

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Which is to show unto a surviving mixed population in the latter days that some unknown fraction of their ancestry may include remnants of that small colony, though not in any principal or clearly identifiable sense;

The "not in any principal or clearly identifiable sense" is quite inaccurate.

The text is not about genetic ancestry.

Moreover, this vastly diminishes the grandeur and significance of this portion of the Title Page: 

Quote

Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever...

What your AI bot is writing is not remotely comparable to this, nor to my assessment.

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And also to the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations;

Yes, I like this.

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men working with limited knowledge of the peoples around them; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may perhaps be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

This is just a tortured re-wording. 

If you were going for mockery, it didn't really land.

If you were going for reasoned discourse, that didn't land either.  What you have presented here is just a polemical caricature.  The AI-reworded Title Page takes the limited-geography + extensive intermingling view (which I think is plausible, but far from the point and purpose of The Book of Mormon) and deliberately pushes it to its most minimalist, tentative, and faith-diluting extreme. It is not a neutral or accurate summary of what most Latter-day Saints who accept this model actually believe — it is a rhetorical device designed to make the position sound weak, marginal, and almost apologetic.

Phrases like "thin cultural and genealogical layer", "some unknown fraction of their ancestry", "not in any principal or clearly identifiable sense", and "mistakes of men working with limited knowledge of the peoples around them" are loaded and minimizing. They portray the Lehites as basically insignificant and the record as tentative or unreliable. Most people who accept intermingling still view the Nephite/Lamanite story as a genuinely important branch of Israelite history and covenant people in the Americas — not something incidental or barely detectable.  That's your assessment, not ours.

The original Title Page is bold, declarative, and confident ("to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done"). This re-wording turns it into something hesitant and hedged.  

It adds skepticism ("if there are faults they are the mistakes of men…") in a sense not reflected in the actual Title Page. The real Title Page acknowledges possible faults but does so in a much more straightforward, humble way without implying the writers were operating with severely limited knowledge of the broader world.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

n the book’s own terms, who are the covenanted people, and what is the Land of Promise? Are these ideas central to the text, and does Smac incorporate these ideas into his arguments with weight that is commensurate with their importance in the Book of Mormon? Also, does Smac offer one clear, falsifiable reading of the text, or does he shift among different theories depending on what problem he is trying to solve? Given that he practices land and title law, consider whether he is taking the covenant’s operative language as seriously as he would in any other instrument.

Can we include how the Bible talks about the promised land and covenants in comparison to what we know of that time period? (That’s what I would be asking)

Edited March 26 by Calm

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes. The land covenant is a core idea, not a side theme.

I'm not sure about this.  The "covenants" in The Book of Mormon center on covenants about and with Jesus Christ.  Ownership or possession of land is an important, but still subsidiary, element of the text.  Note that the Title Page says nothing about "land covenants."

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Here are 12 references from 12 different Book of Mormon books that restate it in one form or another. I am using “land covenant” broadly but still textually: God gives a chosen land; the covenanted people prosper there if obedient; if wicked they are cut off, scattered, or lose their inheritance.

1. Ether 2:7–12
   The first chronological statement of the covenant. This land is “choice above all other lands”; those who serve God may possess it; those who reject him are swept off.

2. 1 Nephi 2:20–21
   Nephi is promised: if he keeps the commandments, he will “prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise.”

3. 2 Nephi 1:5–9, 20
   Lehi explicitly says they have obtained “a land of promise,” “choice above all other lands,” and that if they keep God’s commandments they shall prosper, but if not they shall be cut off.

4. Jacob 2:12
   Jacob calls it “this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed forever.”

5. Enos 1:10
   The Lord says: “I will visit thy brethren according to their diligence in keeping my commandments. I have given unto them this land, and it is a holy land.”

6. Jarom 1:9
   The prophets warn that “inasmuch as ye will keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land.”

7. Omni 1:6
   The same covenant formula is repeated almost verbatim: if they do not keep the commandments, they shall not prosper in the land.

8. Mosiah 1:7
   Benjamin warns that if his sons transgress and lose the records, they will “dwindle in unbelief” and be like the Lamanites. The covenant logic is the same: obedience preserves covenant identity and standing in the land.

9. Alma 36:30
   Alma says he knows that “inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land.”

10. Helaman 12:1–2
    Mormon generalizes the principle: whenever people remember the Lord, he prospers them; this is explicitly tied to the commandment/prosper-in-the-land pattern.

11. 3 Nephi 20:14, 22
    Jesus says, “this people will I establish in this land” in fulfillment of covenant promises, and calls the land their inheritance.

12. Mormon 5:19–20
    Mormon addresses the future remnant as descendants of Jacob who must repent and come to Christ to reenter the covenant story of their fathers. This is the late-book covenant frame for the people tied to the record’s purpose.

If you want a 13th, the Title Page is not a numbered “book,” but it may be the most programmatic of all: the record is to show the remnant of the house of Israel what the Lord did for their fathers and “that they may know the covenants of the Lord.”

So yes, this clearly permeates the text.

Respectfully, I disagree with this assessment.  The passages you listed are real and important, but they don’t make a “land covenant” the core idea of the Book of Mormon. They describe a conditional blessing tied to obedience, not the central covenant itself.

Notice the consistent pattern in every one of your examples:

• “If ye keep the commandments… ye shall prosper in the land” (1 Ne 2:20; 2 Ne 1:9, 20; Jarom 1:9; Omni 1:6; Alma 36:30; Hel 12:1–2, etc.).
• “If ye do not keep the commandments… ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord” and eventually swept off the land.

This is classic Deuteronomic covenant language: the land is a conditional inheritance, not an unconditional title deed. The actual covenant is the same one made with Abraham and fulfilled in Christ — the covenant of salvation through faith, repentance, and obedience to the gospel. The land blessing is simply one of the temporal consequences of keeping (or breaking) that covenant.

Look at how the Book of Mormon itself frames its purpose on the Title Page and in 2 Nephi 25:26, 33:10–11, Mormon 7:1–10, and especially 3 Nephi 11–28 (the Savior’s ministry). The overwhelming emphasis is Jesus Christ — His atonement, His gospel, and the covenant of salvation offered to all people. The land is the stage, not the story.

Even in Ether 2:7–12 (the passage you started with), the Lord’s warning is not primarily about real estate. It is a warning about pride, idolatry, and forgetting the God who brought them there. The land is “choice above all other lands” only so long as the people serve the God of the land.

So yes — there is a recurring “land promise” motif. But calling it the “core idea” of the book is like saying the core idea of the Bible is the promise of Canaan to the Israelites. The actual core of both books is the covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. The land is a blessing that flows from that relationship, not the relationship itself.

Would you agree that the Book of Mormon’s central message is Christ and the covenant of salvation, with the land promise being secondary and conditional?

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Now to Smac.

His strongest point is a limited one: he is right that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly say the land was empty when Lehi arrived. He repeatedly presses that point: the text is “largely silent,” “does not claim the land was empty,” and “does not require the land to be empty.” He also argues that lineage need not equal detectable genetics, invoking identity, adoption, and covenantal lineage rather than strict modern DNA categories.

That is a real point. Silence is not denial.

But in my view he does not give the land covenant anything like the weight it deserves.

I think I do.  Again: The Book of Mormon is not about land ownership.  The core of it is the covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. The land is a blessing that flows from that relationship, not the relationship itself.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Why not? Because the book is not merely silent demographic space plus a few named migrants. It is a covenant narrative.

"{A} covenant narrative" about Jesus Christ, not real estate.

Do I really have to point this out?

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

He says the book is “not an anthropological or sociological or cultural treatise.”

That is true, but it is also a dodge if overused. The criticism is not that the Book of Mormon fails to be a modern anthropology textbook. The criticism is that it very much does present a theological-historical account of a covenant people in a covenant land. If that is the book’s core architecture, then demographic minimization cannot just be waved away by saying the text is not an anthropology manual.

Huh?  A "theological-historical account of a covenant people in a covenant land" only succeeds if it includes lots of details about demography?

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

He also says the text is “largely silent either way” about a vast pre-existing population, while also insisting Lehi’s party was probably only 25–50 people and their DNA would have been immediately diluted upon intermarriage.

Oh, brother.  

Feel free to guess how many souls were in Lehi's party.  And good luck with moving well outside of 25-50 people.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That move is possible, but it is doing apologetic work that the text itself does not do.

The text indicates more than 25-50 people?  Less?  Which one?

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The more he leans on dilution into a large preexisting population, the more the book’s own covenant rhetoric starts to thin out.

I have no idea what this means.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If the Lamanites are the covenant remnant to whom the book is addressed, and if the land is repeatedly promised to that remnant and its seed, then reducing that seed to a tiny, effectively untraceable thread inside a much larger unrelated population does not sit comfortably with the book’s own way of talking.

I have thousands of ancestors, but only one line of "Macdonalds."  "Macdonald" as a surname is therefore a small, and yet still quite significant, portion of my ancestry.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And yes, he does appear to shift frameworks depending on the problem he is solving.

When the issue is DNA, he emphasizes:

• tiny founding group,

• large surrounding population,

• rapid dilution,

• covenant lineage not equal to genetics.

When the issue is textual expectations, he emphasizes:

• the book is not a cultural treatise,

• the text is largely silent,

• critics are reading assumptions into it.

Yes, when I talk about Topic A, I raise points pertinent to Topic A.

And when I talk about Topic B, I raise points pertinent to Topic B.

Topic A may well involve a different set of points and a different "framework" than Topic B.

And in other news, circles are round and water is wet.  

AI bots spouting truisms is boring.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

When the issue is tension between the record and expected archaeological/cultural signals, he is open to saying Mormon may have had “only a limited understanding” of earlier cultural elements.

I'll that about Mormon all the time, not just when there is "tension."

That said, I don't foreclose the possibility that God revealed things to Mormon about his people, including his ancestors, that would likely have otherwise been unknown to him.  A few examples:

1. Mormon 7:1–10 (Mormon’s final message to the latter-day remnant)

Mormon addresses the future descendants of Lehi (the “remnant of the house of Jacob”) who would live in the latter days — people who had not yet been born and whose existence and circumstances he could not have known from the historical plates:

Quote

“And now, I speak unto the remnant of the house of Jacob who are of the house of Israel… I know that they shall be gathered in from their long dispersion… and they shall be brought to the knowledge of the Lord their God… I write unto you, my beloved brethren, that ye may know that ye are of the house of Israel… Therefore, I would that ye should know that ye are of the house of Israel…”

Mormon is speaking prophetically to a people centuries in the future. He tells them they are descendants of Lehi, that they must repent and come to Christ, and that they are part of the covenant. This is not information he could have obtained from the plates of Nephi or Ether; it is knowledge given to him by revelation.

2. Mormon 5:9–14

Mormon speaks of the future Lamanites (again, a future remnant) and states that God has shown him their latter-day condition and destiny:

Quote

“And now, I speak unto you, my beloved brethren, who are of the house of Israel… I know that they shall be gathered in from their long dispersion… for I know that they shall be numbered among the house of Israel.”

Again, he uses the phrase “I know” in a prophetic sense — knowledge that goes beyond what the historical record could have told him.

3. Words of Mormon 1:3–7

Mormon explains why he inserted the small plates of Nephi into his abridgment:

Quote

“I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the spirit of prophecy which is in me… And I know not all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will.”

Mormon openly states that the Spirit of the Lord (revelation) directed him to include certain records for a future purpose he did not fully understand at the time. This is a clear admission that God was revealing things to him about the future usefulness of the record to his people.

4. Mormon 3:16–22 and Mormon 8:1–13 (Moroni’s continuation)

Mormon and Moroni both indicate that they were shown the latter-day audience of the record and given instructions about how and why it would come forth. Moroni explicitly says his father Mormon was shown future events concerning the record’s reception among the Gentiles and the remnant.

But this is all important stuff.  I don't know that the Lord bothered to give Mormon lessons on Mesoamerican demographic trends over the centuries.  That's sort of a weird expectation, TBH.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Smac is right to notice what the instrument does not explicitly say. But I do not think he gives sufficient weight to what it does say over and over.

Yes.  Lots of stuff about Jesus Christ.

References to land ownership are decidedly secondary and circumstantial.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So my bottom-line judgment is this:

Smac has a valid narrow rebuttal to the claim that the Book of Mormon explicitly requires an empty hemisphere. It does not.

Well, I'm glad we can agree on that.

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But as an interpretation of the book’s center of gravity, his reading is weak.

I'm pretty comfortable with declaring that the book's "center of gravity" is Jesus Christ, not land acquisition and ownership in ancient times.

Again, look at the Title Page.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The passages you listed are real and important, but they don’t make a “land covenant” the core idea of the Book of Mormon.

The Nephites skip out on their original covenanted land pretty quickly to avoid conflict with the Lamanites.  Nothing in the text says the land of promise was sea to sea that I can remember and given they came from a land of promise for their ancestors that was about the size of New Jersey if Alexa is right, why would they assume it was a continent or hemisphere?

 

Edited March 26 by Calm

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How can we be sure they understood Noah’s experience the same way it is usually described today (the entire planet covered)?

In checking out exactly what is said, I notice Moroni limits the Jaredites to  “inhabitants….upon the face of this north country”.  

Moroni believes the Jews have this creation info, but seems he is assuming here, rather than knowing.  I wonder if he checked the brass plates, can’t remember what’s on them except the genealogy of Lehi.

Exactly, we can't be sure how the Jaredites understood the flood. All we have is Moroni's abridgment of their account. But Moroni does include one overlooked and extremely critical detail:

"Now the daughter of Jared was exceedingly fair. And it came to pass that she did talk with her father, and said unto him: Whereby hath my father so much sorrow? Hath he not read the record which our fathers brought across the great deep? Behold, is there not an account concerning them of old, that they by their secret plans did obtain kingdoms and great glory?"

The Jaredites had carried with them, across the sea, a record of their fathers. This is only a few generations after the flood, so they had a manuscript history as a primary source, and would have known a lot about the flood and the tower.

Everything Moroni knew about the flood would have come through either the Jaredite 24 plates or the brass plates or anything he might have picked up from Lehi or Nephi's understanding of the Mosaic record. My guess is since the Jaredite records were the closest in time to the actual events, and were first person accounts of the flood and the tower and the migrations, Moroni would have followed that, while cross-checking brass plates and Nephite plates

2 hours ago, Calm said:

So I don’t think you should make assumptions of what the literal reading is based on information you have gotten from outside the text.

I fully agree, but this complicates things quite a lot because a local flood goes against the Mosaic record. If Moroni understood the flood as a local event, he only solution would be that Moroni was following an older Jaredite primary source like the one introduced in Ether 8:9.

If Moroni was following the Mosaic account, then he'd understand that only 8 people survived the global flood, and the entire world was unpopulated. otoh If Moroni was following the Jaredite record carried across the deep (and I believe he was) then it could be that he understood the flood was not a catastrophic genetic bottleneck. He would not be troubled to square the Mosaic record with the millions of indigenous people that had been in the promised land for thousands of years before the Jaredites.

BTW, ever since the Americas were discovered, this was a huge problem for the Mosaic record and Biblical apologists. Joseph Smith, whether through revelation or otherwise, resolved the problem with the publication of his translation of the Book of Ether. I am truly impressed with his work, and this is why I never want to get dragged into a back-and-forth about whether he was a fraud or not.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

fully agree, but this complicates things quite a lot because a local flood goes against the Mosaic record

That we have…and only our relatively modern interpretation of it since as Chat points out and I have read in books that I returned to the library for decades so I can’t cite as it wasn’t originally understood in a geographical sense of total coverage, possibly in a cosmic sense (Hamlet’s Mill covers this, I believe)

We also have no reason to assume the brass plates are identical to what we currently have, do we?

Quote

If Moroni was following the Mosaic account, then he'd understand that only 8 people survived the global flood, and the entire world was unpopulated.

 

Why would Moroni have a more modern understanding than the Jews his people had the records of?

PS:  kind of want to get this book as it has been a few decades since I looked into this stuff, but my brain just doesn’t focus well enough to get through most books these days.  300 pages might be doable if well written and not heavily academic so I have to track too many ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_They_Severed_Earth_from_Sky

Edited March 26 by Calm

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So "that quarter" of "the wilderness" = all land everywhere in the Americas? And isn't "the wilderness" typically not populated (traversed through, perhaps, but not settled or lived in)? Or does the reference to a portion ("that quarter") of "the wilderness" "where there never had man been" possibly indicate that people had been in other "quarters" of "the wilderness"? And Ether 2:5 is likely dated to, what, about 2,200 B.C.?  Perhaps population locations were different then as compared to when Lehi's group arrived?  The Jaredites and Nephites apparently occupied overlapping but largely distinct regions separated by the "narrow neck of land," with one key point of geographic convergence, namely the Hill Cumorah.

See my views here

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We "know this"?  Are you sure?

See my views here

Quote

We "know" this also?  Are you sure?

I asked Grok: "Trace the population of the Jaredites per the text of the Book of Ether."  The response:

I look forward to that day when we recognize that these AI-generated responses don't add a whole lot to the conversation. My day job is prompt engineering. From daily experience with every learning model out there, I know how easy it is to get Claude, or Grok or ChatGPT to affirm anything you want. I just skip over any comment that starts out "I asked Grok:"

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I followed up: "Is this population growth feasible if the only people in the 'land northward' were the Jaredites? Or is it more likely that the "millions" eventually occurred through mingling with other peoples in the area?"

The response:

See above

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, what would "Jaredite DNA" look like, and how do we know that?

I anticipated you'd ask this, so I already responded here

Quote

Only if "that quarter" of "the wilderness" = the entirety of "the land northward."

That's a pretty giant leap in logic and reasoning.  And it's not in the text.

See here

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What is the non-apologetic assessment of the text?

See here

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Again, see Ugo Perrigo's analysis here: 

Finding Lehi in America through DNA Analysis

Ugo is discussing Lehite DNA, he doesn't directly discuss Jaredite DNA. I am referring to Jaredite DNA.

I anticipate you'll again ask "what would "Jaredite DNA" look like, and how do we know that?"

I propose it would look like Onge. See here

Do you ever actually read my responses? Because you sure do ignore them well

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you dispute this?  If so, could you lay out your reasoning?  I'd like to hear what you have to say.

See above

[Zosimus]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would Moroni have a more modern understanding than the Jews his people had the records of?

Because Moroni had access to Jaredite records, and the Jaredites had a record of their fathers from the flood to the tower period. That's a primary source.

It's not more modern, its more ancient, and for that reason Moroni would have followed the Jaredite record over the Mosaic record IMO

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

References to land ownership are decidedly secondary and circumstantial.

Prompt:  Please analyze the Book of Mormon as a text.

Someone argues that the book’s message is primarily about Christ and salvation and that the “land of promise” theme is merely circumstantial. Test that claim against the book’s own language.

Start with the Title Page and the phrase “remnant of the house of Israel.” Then assess whether the book repeatedly presents a covenant pattern of promised land, covenant people, prosperity in the land if obedient, and scattering or destruction if wicked.

Pay attention to phrases like “in the land,” “prosper in the land,” “land of promise,” and “choice land.” Also explain what “multiplied in the land” most naturally means in context. In addition to looking for these words, consider the overall story arc and what that illustrates.

When making a plain-reading of the text, is the specific identity and nature of the land of promise a big deal? Is that land being seperated from others and given to the chosen people who God brings here a big deal? Is identifying specifically who the Lamanites are a big deal?

Quote

 

The Book of Mormon’s Own Language Does Not Treat the “Land of Promise” Theme as Incidental

A common claim is that the Book of Mormon is mainly about Christ and salvation, and that the “land of promise” theme is just background. On a plain reading of the text, that is not persuasive.

The book is certainly about Christ. But it is also plainly about a covenant people, a covenant land, and the repeated rule that people prosper in the land if obedient and are scattered, overrun, or destroyed if wicked.

1. The Title Page itself makes covenant identity a major purpose

The Title Page does not present the book’s purpose as only generic salvation teaching.

It says the record is written:

• “to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel”

• to show them “what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers”

• so “they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever”

• “and also” to convince Jew and Gentile that “Jesus is the Christ”

That is the book’s own framing. Its stated purpose is not only Christological. It is also explicitly about covenant lineage, covenant memory, and covenant status.

2. The “remnant of the house of Israel” language is not incidental

That phrase is not decorative. It identifies the primary addressee as a surviving covenant people.

The book does not merely say:
“Here is a message about Jesus for everyone.”

It says, in effect:
“This record is for a specific remnant of Israel, so they may know God’s covenants toward them.”

That means identity matters. Descent matters. Israelite continuity matters. The Lamanites’ identity is not a side issue in the book’s own presentation.

3. From the beginning, the book introduces a covenant land, not a random setting

Very early, Lehi’s family is promised:

• “a land of promise”

• “a land which I have prepared for you”

• “a land which is choice above all other lands”

That is not scenery. That is programmatic language.

The land is presented as:

• prepared by God

• specifically given

• “choice”

• covenantally conditioned

The text is not saying merely, “This happened somewhere.”
It is saying, “God brought this people to a specific promised land under covenant terms.”

4. The recurring covenant formula is one of the book’s dominant patterns

The repeated pattern is:

• God brings a people to a promised land

• they are a covenant people

• if obedient, they prosper in the land

• if wicked, they are cut off, scattered, conquered, or destroyed

This is one of the most repeated formulas in the entire book.

Especially prominent is the refrain:

• “inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land”

That line, and variations of it, appears again and again in speeches, prophecies, royal charges, editorial summaries, and historical transitions.

That is not incidental thematic residue. It is one of the book’s controlling interpretive keys.

5. “Prosper in the land” does not naturally mean merely “feel spiritually blessed”

In context, “prosper in the land” usually means concrete flourishing in that land:

• security

• survival

• freedom from enemies

• military strength

• social stability

• wealth

• increase

• successful settlement and inheritance

The phrase is often used in contexts involving war, famine, migration, national strength, political order, and preservation from destruction.

So on a plain reading, “prosper in the land” is not mainly inward or abstract. It is territorial, communal, and historical.

6. “Multiplied in the land” most naturally means population growth and expansion there

The phrase “multiplied in the land” is best read in its ordinary contextual sense:

• population increase

• family growth

• settlement expansion

• agricultural establishment

• increase in social and military strength

It is often paired with phrases like:

• “wax strong”

• “spread upon the face of the land”

• “till the earth”

• “grow rich”

• “prosper exceedingly”

So the natural meaning is not primarily mystical or metaphorical. It means the people literally increased and became established in the land.

7. The book repeatedly stresses that this is a “choice land”

The text does not speak of the land in generic terms. It repeatedly calls it:

• “land of promise”

• “choice above all other lands”

• “choice land”

That repeated wording shows the land’s identity matters.

The book is not indifferent to the land.
It emphasizes its distinct status over and over.

8. The land is treated as separated, preserved, and specially given

The text repeatedly teaches that this land was:

• preserved from other nations for a time

• given to those whom God would bring to it

• reserved for covenant inheritance

• threatened by divine judgment if its inhabitants became wicked

That means the separation of this land from others is not incidental either.

The plain thrust is:

• God leads chosen groups here

• God gives them this land

• God regulates their tenure in it by covenant obedience

That is a major idea in the book.

9. The same land-covenant pattern is applied to multiple peoples, not just one

This matters because it shows the pattern is structural, not accidental.

The Nephites receive the pattern.
The Jaredites receive the same pattern.

In Ether, the promised land is again called choice, and the decree is again covenantal: those who possess it must serve God or be swept off.

So the book does not use land language once and move on.
It builds an entire theology of history around it.

10. Christ and the land theme are not competitors in the book

A false choice is often made here.

The Book of Mormon does not force the reader to choose between:

• Christ and salvation

• covenant people and promised land

It presents both.

Its structure is closer to this:

• Jesus Christ is the true God and Savior

• this people is a remnant of Israel

• this land is promised and choice

• the people’s history on that land demonstrates covenant blessings and covenant curses

• the record is preserved both to testify of Christ and to restore covenant awareness to the remnant

So Christ is central, but the covenant-land framework is also central.

11. The overall story arc proves the point

The book’s narrative arc is not just:
“People preach about Jesus.”

It is:

• a family is led by God to a promised land

• that family divides into rival covenant lineages

• the peoples contend over inheritance, rule, righteousness, and survival in the land

• prosperity follows obedience

• decline follows pride and wickedness

• destruction comes when covenant warnings are finally ignored

• the record is preserved for a latter-day remnant tied to that same covenant story

In other words, the whole plot illustrates the land-covenant pattern.

12. So is the specific identity and nature of the land of promise a big deal?

Yes.

On a plain reading, it is a very big deal.

The book repeatedly insists that the land is:

• promised

• prepared

• choice

• covenantally governed

• specially given to those whom God brings to it

That is not background detail. It is one of the book’s central framing ideas.

13. Is the land being separated from others and given to the chosen people a big deal?

Yes.

The text repeatedly treats that as a major covenant fact.

The land is not presented as religiously neutral real estate.
It is presented as a divinely reserved inheritance, granted under conditions.

14. Is identifying specifically who the Lamanites are a big deal?

Yes.

The Title Page says so immediately.

The book is written to:

• “the Lamanites”

• who are “a remnant of the house of Israel”

That means their identity is not a side matter.
It is part of the book’s declared purpose.

The record wants them to know:

• who they are

• what God did for their fathers

• what covenants still pertain to them

• and that Jesus is the Christ

Bottom line

The plain-reading conclusion is straightforward:

The Book of Mormon is indeed a witness of Christ and salvation. But it does not present the promised-land theme as merely circumstantial.

By its own repeated language and overall story arc, it presents:

• a specific remnant

• of the house of Israel

• on a specific promised land

• under a recurring covenant law:
  obedience brings prosperity in the land; wickedness brings scattering, conquest, or destruction

So yes, the identity of the land matters.
Yes, the separation and giving of that land matter.
Yes, the identity of the Lamanites matters.

The book itself treats all of that as a big deal.

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

e, I know how easy it is to get Claude, or Grok or ChatGPT to affirm anything you want. I just skip over any comment that starts out "I asked Grok:"

I cringe when I use it that way, to summarize things (I use it to find sources, but usually check them unless in a real hurry and find the quotes I like myself).  Some days that’s all I am up to and if I know the knowledge already, so I can tell how accurate it is at least in a basic way….yeah, I cheat.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Because Moroni had access to Jaredite records, and the Jaredites had a record of their fathers from the flood to the tower period. That's a primary source.

It's not more modern, its more ancient, and for that reason Moroni would have followed the Jaredite record over the Mosaic record IMO

I think we agree on this, but if so the hemisphere doesn’t have to be empty of people if I understood what you said here:

Quote

Moroni was following the Mosaic account, then he'd understand that only 8 people survived the global flood, and the entire world was unpopulated. otoh If Moroni was following the Jaredite record carried across the deep (and I believe he was) then it could be that he understood the flood was not a catastrophic genetic bottleneck. He would not be troubled to square the Mosaic record with the millions of indigenous people that had been in the promised land for thousands of years before the Jaredites.

I don’t believe the Mosaic accounts we currently have force a reading that only 8 people existed on the entire planet after the Flood given how I have seen scholars describe the likely development and understanding of the Genesis Flood myth (which label I do not assume means fictional, it serves a different purpose than history texts though).

Edited March 26 by Calm

[Zosimus]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I cringe when I use it that way, to summarize things (I use it to find sources, but usually check them unless in a real hurry and find the quotes I like myself).  Some days that’s all I am up to and if I know the knowledge already, so I can tell how accurate it is at least in a basic way….yeah, I cheat.

I'm a big believer in everyone using AI as much as possible, it is a total unlock in our inputs and outputs. I could read AI output all day long because I've configured my agents to automatically reject what I think and tell me why I'm wrong and give me a 

I don't trust AI that hasn't been finely-tuned to reduce sycophancy, so I don't bother reading copy/pastes of AI prompts that are meant to be some sort of neutral arbitrator of forum discussions, that are also AI-generated.

I don't mind AI output in a forum post if it is general reference, and not posted as a final conclusion or a zinger.

[Zosimus]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I think we agree on this, but if so the hemisphere doesn’t have to be empty of people if I understood what you said here:

Yes, if Moroni was following something other than the Mosaic record (eg. a Jaredite account) then he didn't need to conform to the Biblical account, and we don't either

But it gets more complicated, because this was the foundation of a longstanding war between Biblical apologists vs Deists and Biblical history skeptics. So for me it begins to feel that the Book of Ether is a response to that modern debate

I haven't landed on a final conclusion yet, but if your interested in the search, its documented here. But one thing I'm sure of is the Book of Mormon is a consequential addition to the search for the pure original truth

[Zosimus]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t believe the Mosaic accounts we currently have force a reading that only 8 people existed on the entire planet after the Flood given how I have seen scholars describe the likely development and understanding of the Genesis Flood myth (which label I do not assume means fictional, it serves a different purpose than history texts though).

Only you'd have been thrown in a dungeon for believing that at any point before the 19th century. This interpretation of Genesis is a 21st century adjustment that works well for us Mormons who don't subscribe to solo scriptura. Volumes and volumes had been written between the 15th and 19th centuries trying to work this problem out. But much of it was done anonymously or pseudo-anonymously out of fear. Often people just waited to die to publish, then their sacrilegious ideas wouldn't get them killed.

Joseph Smith did work it out, but he couldn't do it with the Mosaic record alone. He had to restore other equally ancient texts and truths as more reliable witnesses. And even in 1845 American frontier, it got him killed

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Only you'd have been thrown in a dungeon for believing that at any point before the 19th century.

I don’t get this. Why would Jews from 600 BC get thrown in the dungeon for believing in a local or theological or cosmic flood rather than a geographical one that killed every human in existence off except for 8 people when the latter wasn’t their religious or cultural belief? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

But it gets more complicated, because this was the foundation of a longstanding war between Biblical apologists vs Deists and Biblical history skeptics. So for me it begins to feel that the Book of Ether is a response to that modern debate

My premise I am starting with for this discussion (and it’s the one I hold personally) is the first text source is ancient in origin, so I am trying to look at the current English text when referring to likely biblical narratives as having an external contextual framework of 600 BC Israel, though the Brass Plates might be in part from much earlier than that if Lehi’s description is a valid hint about what it is (which may have issues with timing of the development of records according to scholarship, I have never been good at keeping timelines in my head even if I managed the order).  I just think we should be cautious if treating the Book of Mormon on its own terms not to make assumptions on exactly what was in the brass plates exactly (as in details of the stories).

I can understand why your response is what it is given what I believe are at least some of your premises from how you have described. Have enjoyed the discussion. 
 

Quote

I haven't landed on a final conclusion yet, but if your interested in the search, its documented here. 

That looks like fun.  Unfortunately tonight is not the night to attempt it, hopefully I won’t forget (I don’t trust my brain at all right now as it has apparently decided I need to feed it sodium in a precise, yet unpredictable dilution…who knew mixing electrolytes and water and trying to stay hydrated could be so tricky).

Edited March 26 by Calm

[Zosimus]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t get this. Why would Jews from 600 BC get thrown in the dungeon for believing in a local or theological or cosmic flood rather than a geographical one that killed every human in existence off except for 8 people when the latter wasn’t their religious or cultural belief? 

Jews in 600 BC wouldn't. A local (or global) flood was only a problem for Christians, who had a very different view of Adam, the flood and the role of Noah and his sons. Speculation about anyone surviving the global flood was highly dangerous because these things were fundamental:

1. Adam sinned (the Fall)
2. All humans descend from Adam (monogenism)
3. Therefore all humans inherit original sin
4. Therefore all humans need redemption through Christ and the Church

Then the highly advanced civilizations of millions of people in the Americas were discovered. Some like La Peyrere speculated that these Americans were pre-Adamites, a line that did not descend from Adam and were unaffected by the flood. This enraged orthodox Christians, because it implied indigenous Americans didn't inherit original sin and had no need for Christ (and the Church) to save them from original sin. For this blasphemy, La Peyrere's books were burned. He was arrested and forced to recant, which he did.

So if you're saying that Moroni didn't need to worry about getting the dungeon for believing there were Adamites that survived the flood in America, I'd agree. My point is Moroni had more ancient and accurate primary Jaredite and Nephite sources, therefore Moroni had better theology than what European Christians pieced together from the confusing Mosaic record that they misinterpreted to require that only 8 humans survived the flood, and we all descend from those 8 and all inherited their sin.

My larger point is that Joseph restored exactly those two things (the extra-Mosaic Book of Ether + rejection of original sin), making it possible for us Mormons to speculate that there might have been people in the Americas before the Jaredites. Other Christians still struggle with this

Edited March 26 by Zosimus

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I haven't landed on a final conclusion yet, but if your interested in the search, its documented here. 

That looks like fun.  Unfortunately tonight is not the night to attempt it, hopefully I won’t forget (I don’t trust my brain at all right now as it has apparently decided I need to feed it sodium in a precise, yet unpredictable dilution…who knew mixing electrolytes and water and trying to stay hydrated could be so tricky).

Hey, I just dipped into it and it’s well written so far, easy for me to digest. And it’s catching my attention like any good puzzle.  But I am someone who likes things built orderly, I do the edges first and then usually work in by color blocks.  I prefer reading prequels first even if written later….though I also read the end of fiction books first so I can see better how the author develops the plot and pick up on foreshadowing, etc…..so where’s the best place for me to start in your opinion?  In my younger days it would have been fun to piece it together if you jump around, can’t handle that very well now as it interrupts focus.