Does Limited Geography Conflict With The Bom?

[cinepro]

And this is a pretty major example. This is, precisely, the "holy crap, there are other people here" experience some have been expecting to see. Critics tend to dismiss this event because the people of Zarahemla are descended from Mulek. But unfortunately, we don't have that history. We don't even have an abridgement of it. We only have the explanation that they didn't keep a history. When Mulek arrived in the New Land, did he find others here? Did his people mingle with them? We don't know. We can't know.

This seems to me to be an enormous problem for those insisting that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of "others." The Nephite record explicitly states that they did find "others." It also explicitly states that we have no detailed history of them to tell us what they found when they came here.

*SHRUG* Makes sense to me anyway.

Unfortunately, Zarahemla does more damage to the argument for "others", since they are identified, and are given an origin story linking them back the Old World, with a migration story that remains consistent with the idea that the only people in the New World were brought specifically (and explicitly) by God's hand.

You also have to contend with the fact that the Book of Mormon is presented as being a comprehensive record of the people in the area. There just aren't places for huge, irrelevant, uninterested populations. For example, Jacob 1:13-14 seems woefully inadequate to account for large, adjacent native populations that remain unconverted to the Lamanite or Nephite causes:

12 And it came to pass that Nephi died.

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

The list in 13 seems to be Jacob's idea of a pretty comprehensive accounting of the people living in the area. Where do the non-Christian, pork-eating "others" fit in? Apologists continually try to shrink the perspective of the Book of Mormon, but verses like this defy shrinking. Jacob is explicitly naming all the people he knows about. Then, for brevity's sake, he summarizes the groups as "Lamanites" and "Nephites", but there is still no acknowledgment of any "others" who have not joined with either group. The asian-descended others who don't care about these Bible-toting intruders.

[Brant Gardner]

I can understand an "us/them" view of the world, but in reality, there would have to be three groups of people coexisting in the land:

1. The pre-christian "Nephites" who are familiar with the story of Lehi, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the brass plates, observant of Mosaic law, etc.

2. The anti-christian "Lamanites" who are antagonistic against the Nephites, and want to destroy them.

3. The people who aren't "Nephite" or "Lamanite", who don't believe in the Christian teachings of the Nephites, but aren't antagonistic towards them. They just don't care. They hardly give the Nephites or Lamanites a second thought, and find their squabbles to be irrelevant or bothersome. (I believe these people are the only ones who have left archaeological evidence of their existence.)

According to Jacob, the terms Lamanite and Nephite are used in the text to determine only two of your three:

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. (Book of Mormon | Jacob 1:14)

Returning to the problem of us/them, there are only two, not the three you posit. The "others" have become either Nephite or Lamanite, depending upon whether or not they are "friendly" to Nephi. Malina and Rohrbaugh call this the principle of the excluded middle and suggest that it is a common aspect of ancient personalities (their research was in the Ancient Near East, but I see no reason to preclude it from the Book of Mormon context).

As far as your comment about the people in your number 3 being the only ones to leave archaeological remains, you are making some big assumptions about the nature of physical remains that simply don't square with known history (such as the entrance of Israelites into Canaan).

Wouldn't you expect that a text purporting to be ancient would follow ancient logic and not necessarily match with your modern assumptions of what it should have been?

[Brant Gardner]

You also have to contend with the fact that the Book of Mormon is presented as being a comprehensive record of the people in the area.

That would be very unusual for any ancient document. I am unaware of any that would be so treated, even by the people who created it.

[maupayman]

I agree that is a huge problem.

Add in the fact that Nephi lists all the animals and ores they find in the New World, but fails to mention the different tribes of dark-skinned people (!?), and note God's distinct attitude change from the Old Testament Israelites finding "others" in their Promised Land ("kill them, and wipe out their paganistic culture"), to His more enlightened approach with the Lehites ("intermarry with them, try to maintain a sub-culture with your beliefs and language, but allow the general population to continue their worship of the Sun-god"), with nary a warning to the Pre-christian Nephites to avoid the larger population's paganism, and it isn't as clear-cut as I wish it was.

Perhaps this is how Nephi originally wrote 1 Nephi 18:25:

Interesting points Cinepro, I recall a thread that Uncle Dale started a while back which showed how the Hagoth voyages were problematic for the LGT theory as well, here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...4&hl=hagoth.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Brant writes:

The Nephite land of inheritance is "overrun" in around 200 B.C. and forces Mosiah and those who believed as he did to flee to Zarahemla. That was the reason for the "as yet" in verse 8.

Acutally, I think it happens much earlier (as in 2nd Nephi). When Jacob gives his sermon (Book of Jacob) he tells them they are in the wilderness - and the land which they had abandoned to Laman and Lemuel is refferred to for a while as the land of their first inheritance.

[TrespassersW]

Unfortunately, Zarahemla does more damage to the argument for "others", since they are identified, and are given an origin story linking them back the Old World, with a migration story that remains consistent with the idea that the only people in the New World were brought specifically (and explicitly) by God's hand.

I disagree completely. Yes, they came. Yes, they were even "brought". I don't see how that affects what I said at all. The point is: What did they find when they got here? Where does the book identify that? If the people of Mulek came and mingled with an existing native population, and then later the people of Nephi came and mingled with the people of Mulek--how does the Book of Mormon text preclude that possibility? It doesn't require that the Nephites even be aware of the presence of any group other than the residents of Zarahemla.

You also have to contend with the fact that the Book of Mormon is presented as being a comprehensive record of the people in the area.

That seems completely wrong to me. In fact, I believe the book (and especially the small plates of Nephi, which is really what we're concerned with here) describes itself very differently. It claims to be neither 'comprehensive' nor even a 'record of people in the area'. It claims to be a collection of some of the spiritual highlights of the people of Nephi. See 1 Nephi Chapter 9. If it purported to be a 'comprehensive' record, then I think the Book of Omni would be a pretty glaring problem.

There just aren't places for huge, irrelevant, uninterested populations.

I'm not sure how you can justify this claim. Most of the first three and a half centuries of the Nephite settlement are barely described at all. They are summarized in just a few brief statements. In fact, one of the only things they do mention during that time period is the discovery of an entire city full of "others."

Are you suggesting that there's no room in the rest of that 350 year time period for anything else of that nature to have happened? That seems a very odd claim.

For example, Jacob 1:13-14 seems woefully inadequate to account for large, adjacent native populations that remain unconverted to the Lamanite or Nephite causes:

I don't think that any population, ever, had to be converted to the Lamanite cause to be considered a Lamanite. I think they simply had to be hostile to the people of Nephi, exactly as Jacob says in verse 14.

The list in 13 seems to be Jacob's idea of a pretty comprehensive accounting of the people living in the area. Where do the non-Christian, pork-eating "others" fit in?

I certainly won't begrudge you your right to make that assumption. Assume whatever you want, but don't expect me to feel obligated to account for your assumptions. But, even if that is what Jacob intended, so what? Why is it necessary that these "others" be discovered during Jacob's lifetime? So what if Jacob never found any others and thought that was all there was? They didn't find Zarahemla until centuries later. Why couldn't they also have discovered other populations during those following centuries? Other populations that were less interesting perhaps because they weren't connected back to Jerusalem and therefore didn't bear mentioning?

Apologists continually try to shrink the perspective of the Book of Mormon, but verses like this defy shrinking. Jacob is explicitly naming all the people he knows about. Then, for brevity's sake, he summarizes the groups as "Lamanites" and "Nephites", but there is still no acknowledgment of any "others" who have not joined with either group.

Yes, by Jacob chapter one, we have no explicit reference to any "others" joining the Nephites. That comes later. As for anyone joining with the Lamanites, I think you completely misunderstand the argument. No one needs to have "joined" with the Lamanites to be considered one by the Nephites. All they need to do is be hostile to the people of Nephi. Then, by Jacob's definition, they are a Lamanite. Whether they considered themselves to be "Lamanites" or not is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter whether or not Jacob was aware of such other groups or had them in mind when he defined the term. It could have come from Enos, or Jarom, Omni, Amaron, Chemish, Abinadom, or Amaleki, at any time over the next couple of centuries of almost completely unrecorded history.

[maupayman]

And this is a pretty major example. This is, precisely, the "holy crap, there are other people here" experience some have been expecting to see. Critics tend to dismiss this event because the people of Zarahemla are descended from Mulek. But unfortunately, we don't have that history. We don't even have an abridgement of it. We only have the explanation that they didn't keep a history. When Mulek arrived in the New Land, did he find others here? Did his people mingle with them? We don't know. We can't know.

This seems to me to be an enormous problem for those insisting that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of "others." The Nephite record explicitly states that they did find "others." It also explicitly states that we have no detailed history of them to tell us what they found when they came here.

*SHRUG* Makes sense to me anyway.

To me, this question is answered in one of the verses I quoted in the OP:

"I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring our of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance."

Others were brought by from the land of Jerusalem and the Book of Mormon makes specific mention of them, it is odd that they do not clearly mention the established native civilizations at any point. This verse also seems to be odd, in light of Brant's theory, that they recieved this promise over a small area when they first landed, only to within a short time join with the native population. They were clearly not kept from all other nations as in Lehi's promise.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You also have to contend with the fact that the Book of Mormon is presented as being a comprehensive record of the people in the area.

CFR. I don't have to contend with something that isn't there.

[ryanelwood]

I have been trying to understand where apologists and LDS scholars are getting the idea that the Book of Mormon speaks of other people being present in America when Lehi's party arrived. I must admit that I don't see it. Specifically one verse seems to conflict with this idea in 2 Nephi 1:8.

In verses 5-7 Lehi is talking about the promised land which the Lord had led them to and in verse 6 it reads: "I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord."

Then in verse 8 it reads: "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance."

Furthermore, in verse 9 it says: "I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring our of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance."

The idea of the Mayan civilization already being present and the Lehites being absorbed into their civilization seems to contradict these verses in many ways. First of all, that would mean that the asian migrations were brought here by the hand of the Lord, as in verse 6. Second, it says that at the time Lehi arrived this land had been kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations. This is not correct, in light of what we know about the established civilizations and what is suggested by the LGT. Lehi also says that they will possess this land unto themselves. I cannot understand how these verses are compatible with the LGT.

Any insight? Am I missing something here, or misreading the verses? I have seen no clear reference to the established Mayan civilization within the Book of Mormon, so where do they get this idea from? Are any of these people writing papers and books on the limited geography theory experts, or scholars in Mesoamerican history? This idea also seems to conflict with revelations to prophets regarding Nephite/Lamanite lands.

Thanks in advance all for any insight and thoughts.

Maupayman the BOM does seem to indicate that the Jaredites were the first in the Americas and that then the Lehites and Mulekites came years later. This was also the understanding of Joseph Smith. If you read the Wentworth letter the Lamanites are not the "principle" ancestor of the American Indians nor "among" the ancestors of the American Indians; the Lamanites are THE ancestor of the Indians. Joseph said, "I was informed [by the angel] concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments..." Brent Metcalfe wrote in Sunstone magizine about three years ago where he compiled the many statements from the BOM that clearly indicate the BOM people were the first to reach the Americas. It seems obvious that the BOM is written from a literalist perspective concerning the Bible. The flood killed everybody 5,000 years ago so of course no one was in America when the Jaredites arrived. How to reconcile biblical and BOM beliefs with what we now know from science and anthropology is up to the individual.

[cinepro]

Maupayman the BOM does seem to indicate that the Jaredites were the first in the Americas and that then the Lehites and Mulekites came years later. This was also the understanding of Joseph Smith.

Apologists have already established that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about on this particular subject. If Joseph knew what FARMS knew, he would have believed as they believe.

[poulsenll]

In the Wentworth Letter Joseph Smith reports that the Angel Moroni, on his first visit gave him a brief sketch of the aboriginal peoples. He is then told that he will find

Wentworth letter

an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent

Nowhere does he state that the record was the same as the sketch he recieved from Moroni. I know that this is a technicallity and that it is reasonable to assume that they were talking about the same thing. It is also reasonable to assume that Joseph Smith impied this in his attempt to give a brief but accurate presentation of the facts relative to the restoration and coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

However, it is also reasonable to assume that by calling it a brief sketch that he was aware that it was not a complete statement relative to the origen of all of those who had ever inhabited this continent.

When you get right down to it, what Joseph thought was based on his concept and understanding of what he heard and remembered. It is the text of the Book of Mormon that is the final arbiter in determining what occured in the Americas relative to the cultures whose records are summarized in its pages.

Larry P

[maupayman]

When you get right down to it, what Joseph thought was based on his concept and understanding of what he heard and remembered. It is the text of the Book of Mormon that is the final arbiter in determining what occured in the Americas relative to the cultures whose records are summarized in its pages.

Larry P

Which is why this thread is based on the Book of Mormon text, as in the OP. Brant has mentioned that he clearly sees reference to the Mayan civilization within the text, though he is yet to illustrate this point. Hopefully, he will do so. I understand that you are also a large proponent of the LGT Larry, what verses indicate the presence of the Mayans to you?

Thanks in advance Larry.

[maupayman]

I understand the idea of when they landed they were in a small isolated area, which was kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations, even the close Mayan civilization. What I do not understand, is how this translates to the promise Lehi recieved in verse 9:

"I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance."

Then we propose that shortly after this they met and became leaders of a Mayan group?

[William Schryver]

Apologists have already established that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about on this particular subject. If Joseph knew what FARMS knew, he would have believed as they believe.

You're probably correct. If Joseph Smith had lived to a ripe old age, and had eventually had the opportunity to read the text critically, he would no doubt have come to the same conclusions that many of us have reached, who have been able to read it repeatedly over the course of a leisurely lifetime. Unfortunately, Joseph didn't have that luxury during his life.

Nowadays, serious students of the Book of Mormon have reached a near-consensus on what the text tells us. The only people who attempt to hold us to the antiquated exegesis of some early (and mostly casual) students, are those who are motivated by their disbelief in the book's antiquity.

I have identified numerous evidences, some nearly-explicit, others quite subtle, of "others" in the Book of Mormon. These evidences have been delineated in several threads on this message board (and others) over the past few years.

Of course, there is no convincing the motivated disbeliever. People like cinepro (and many others) are determined to force their disbelief on the rest of us. I just can't understand why cinepro, and his cohorts, don't have the courage to conform their lives to what would appear to be the dictates of their disbelief. How can you continue attending LDS church meetings from week to week while harboring such a hardened conviction of its fraudulence? Why should we not equate your lack of intellectual integrity in this respect with your inability to objectively consider the evidence that would contradict your fundamentalistic exegetical assertions?

[poulsenll]

I understand the idea of when they landed they were in a small isolated area, which was kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations, even the close Mayan civilization. What I do not understand, is how this translates to the promise Lehi recieved in verse 9:

"I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance."

Then we propose that shortly after this they met and became leaders of a Mayan group?

No no no

The Mayans were not the only cultures present in Mesoamerica at the time of the Nephite incursion. In the area along the western coast where it is proposed that Lehi and his family landed the culture was Olmec (possibly Jaredite) not Mayan. The Mayan culture was located in the Guatemalan and Mexican lowlands, east of the Usamacinta river. A number of Geographic models try to loacate the Nephites in this area but Sorenson makes a rather convincing case based on the text for them to have been located in the Guatemalen highlands and later in the Grijalvas river valley. Many writers use the term Mayan in a generic way to include all the cultures of Mesoamerica but this is incorrect usage. There were significant cultural and above all linguistic differences between the Lowland Maya and the highland cultures at the time of the BofM.

Archaeological data for this area along the Pacific coast, the location of the Izapa "tree of life" stela V, was an old culture and with a relatively low population density. Although some have tried to connect the Stela V carving with the BofM account of Lehi's dream of the "tree of life". a more careful examination of the graphic suggests IMO that it was related to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden and that this culture was from the Jaredites and that they still had some remembrance of the Biblical creation story. In other words a culture ripe to recieve the Nephitess and join with them as converts and also to recognise them as their spiritual leaders (the influence of the Brass Plates) or in the case of Laman and Lemuel as political leaders who could return them to the glory and prestige of their ancestors.

Larry P

[LifeOnaPlate]

Apparently, Will, cinepro likes the people.

But he doesn't make me feel loved very often.

[poulsenll]

Which is why this thread is based on the Book of Mormon text, as in the OP. Brant has mentioned that he clearly sees reference to the Mayan civilization within the text, though he is yet to illustrate this point. Hopefully, he will do so. I understand that you are also a large proponent of the LGT Larry, what verses indicate the presence of the Mayans to you?

Thanks in advance Larry.

See above post. Brant's new books "A second Witnrss" from Kofford books details the data and textual references supporting his hypothesis.

I am a proponent of a non hemispheric model of BofM geography but not necesarily as limited as Sorenson's and some others models. These models do not take into account the geographic descriptions in the book of Ether about the geography of the Jaredite culture and the location of the Hills Shim and Cumorah. They have placed too much confidence on the finding of a hill called corn hill in eastern Veracruz near the Tuxtla mountains and have tried to locate Cumorah and the Jaredite culture in this area. The book of Ether suggests a more northern location in northern Veracruz along the west coast of the Gulf of Mexico. There is an isolated mountain outcrop in the coastal plain at Tepetzintla. The English translation of Tepetzintla is also Corn Hill. This could be the Hill shim or the Hill Cumorah. Based on its size it may have even included both the Hill Shim as well as the Hill Cumorah.

Larry P

[TrespassersW]

To me, this question is answered in one of the verses I quoted in the OP:

"I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring our of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance."

Others were brought by from the land of Jerusalem and the Book of Mormon makes specific mention of them, it is odd that they do not clearly mention the established native civilizations at any point. This verse also seems to be odd, in light of Brant's theory, that they recieved this promise over a small area when they first landed, only to within a short time join with the native population. They were clearly not kept from all other nations as in Lehi's promise.

I don't think we can interpret verse 9 to mean that no other people would be brought to the Americas: Verse 5 tells us that chosen people would be brought from "other countries". The only reading of verses 6 through 10 that makes sense to me is that the world in general would be kept generally ignorant of the Americas, so that they would not overrun it. The Americas would be kept as a special land, isolated from the rest of the world except for those brought here by His guidance. I don't think this means that those groups who were brought could not have contact with each other. Notice that when verse 9 says "they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves" -- it is referring to "those whom the Lord God shall bring" -- not just the Nephites. I don't think we can be justified in reading this as "the Nephites will have this land all to themselves," but rather that "those who are brought here shall have the land all to themselves." The promise was that they would have liberty and there would be "none to molest them" -- not that they would be in complete isolation.

As for it being odd that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention others besides the Mulekites and Jaredites, I think I've already addressed that. For the time period from Enos to Amaleki we have almost zero historical details. Now, whether this is because Nephi commanded that the small plates be reserved for spiritual and not historical things, or because the authors felt unworthy to contribute more than they did (several of them said as much), or because they were running out of room (notice Amaleki's rather abrupt ending). Whatever the reason, these men clearly didn't record a great many details that they could have. I don't think it realistic to assume that this is because nothing important happened. It seems infinitely more likely to me that a great many important things happened, but the authors simply didn't record them for our benefit.

I certainly don't think we're safe to insist that no others could have been present based on the very sketchy details given during this time frame.

[maupayman]

I have identified numerous evidences, some nearly-explicit, others quite subtle, of "others" in the Book of Mormon. These evidences have been delineated in several threads on this message board (and others) over the past few years.

Will, if you are referring to your examples sited in the thread Cinepro linked to this thread, I would say those are far from "nearly-explicit" references.

Of course, there is no convincing the motivated disbeliever. People like cinepro (and many others) are determined to force their disbelief on the rest of us. I just can't understand why cinepro, and his cohorts, don't have the courage to conform their lives to what would appear to be the dictates of their disbelief. How can you continue attending LDS church meetings from week to week while harboring such a hardened conviction of its fraudulence? Why should we not equate your lack of intellectual integrity in this respect with your inability to objectively consider the evidence that would contradict your fundamentalistic exegetical assertions?

Why don't you hunt him down and expose him, as you said was your desire for these types of Mormons.

[maupayman]

I don't think we can interpret verse 9 to mean that no other people would be brought to the Americas: Verse 5 tells us that chosen people would be brought from "other countries". The only reading of verses 6 through 10 that makes sense to me is that the world in general would be kept generally ignorant of the Americas, so that they would not overrun it. The Americas would be kept as a special land, isolated from the rest of the world except for those brought here by His guidance. I don't think this means that those groups who were brought could not have contact with each other. The promise was that they would have liberty and there would be "none to molest them" -- not that they would be in complete isolation.

As for it being odd that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention others besides the Mulekites and Jaredites, I think I've already addressed that. For the time period from Enos to Amaleki we have almost zero historical details. Now, whether this is because Nephi commanded that the small plates be reserved for spiritual and not historical things, or because the authors felt unworthy to contribute more than they did (several of them said as much), or because they were running out of room (notice Amaleki's rather abrupt ending). Whatever the reason, these men clearly didn't record a great many details that they could have. I don't think it realistic to assume that this is because nothing important happened. It seems infinitely more likely to me that a great many important things happened, but the authors simply didn't record them for our benefit.

I certainly don't think we're safe to insist that no others could have been present based on the very sketchy details given during this time frame.

Well I appreciate your attempt to answer my question, I don't agree with your reading of verse 9. You said:

"Notice that when verse 9 says "they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves" -- it is referring to "those whom the Lord God shall bring" -- not just the Nephites. I don't think we can be justified in reading this as "the Nephites will have this land all to themselves," but rather that "those who are brought here shall have the land all to themselves."

You left out an important part of the verse in your quote again: "inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon teh face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves."

Now this is explicit, in that it says those who the brings out of Jerusalem shall have this land to themselves. This is the exact opposite of what you are saying and the ideas I see in the limited geography theories. This quick mixing and joining with local groups does not make sense to me in light of this verse.

[Kevin Christensen]

The point I made post 14 on this thread apparently needs repetition.

Lehi's blessing and cursings note that if his children do not keep their covenants, the curse pertaining to other nations overrunning their lands would be in effect "as one generation passeth to another." In 2 Nephi 5, which recounts what happens after the death of Lehi, and therefore, the time when "one generation passeth to another," it is clear that they weren't keeping the covenants. The curse is in effect so other nations are necessarily involved. (Sorenson discussed this in JBMS 1, and I discussed this in detail in RBBM 7:2) So the mixing happens very early. Brant has aptly noted the repeated Nephite migrations and loss of lands.

And very early Nephite and Lamanite become political/cultural, rather than lineage designations. And that, as has been observed before, has implications for understanding their use in the D&C and LDS tradition.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[TrespassersW]

Well I appreciate your attempt to answer my question, I don't agree with your reading of verse 9. You said:

You left out an important part of the verse in your quote again: "inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon teh face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves."

You are quite right. I stand corrected. The promise in verse 9 is clearly directed at the Nephites and Mulekites. But take another look at verse 5:

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

This seems to clearly state that "this land" would be shared with other people brought from other countries and that this land would be a promised land to them also. In light of that, I don't see how one could insist that verse 9 must mean that the Nephites should be completely isolated. I think we can only interpret it to mean that they would be isolated from Old World nations, not those who were brought to the land by the hand of God.

[maupayman]

The point I made post 14 on this thread apparently needs repetition.

Lehi's blessing and cursings note that if his children do not keep their covenants, the curse pertaining to other nations overrunning their lands would be in effect "as one generation passeth to another." In 2 Nephi 5, which recounts what happens after the death of Lehi, and therefore, the time when "one generation passeth to another," it is clear that they weren't keeping the covenants. The curse is in effect so other nations are necessarily involved. (Sorenson discussed this in JBMS 1, and I discussed this in detail in RBBM 7:2) So the mixing happens very early. Brant has aptly noted the repeated Nephite migrations and loss of lands.

And very early Nephite and Lamanite become political/cultural, rather than lineage designations. And that, as has been observed before, has implications for understanding their use in the D&C and LDS tradition.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

So, let me see if I understand what you are trying to say Kevin. They arrived in a small area known as the promised land, which was uninhabited by the natives of the area. Lehi is promised that if the people obey the commandments they will have the land for themselves. In 2 Nephi 5, we have an indication of them not obeying the commandments and so they mix and share the land with the natives. Would this summary be correct?

[Kevin Christensen]

So, let me see if I understand what you are trying to say Kevin. They arrived in a small area known as the promised land, which was uninhabited by the natives of the area. Lehi is promised that if the people obey the commandments they will have the land for themselves. In 2 Nephi 5, we have an indication of them not obeying the commandments and so they mix and share the land with the natives. Would this summary be correct?

Close. I personally think the mixing with locals started immediately. A few little hamlets with a few families is not necessarily a "nation." And the I think that the notion of a promised land, as well as a cursed land, can travel with a covenant people. It's not tied to one location, nor one set of regional or geographic boundaries.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[poulsenll]

Close. I personally think the mixing with locals started immediately. A few little hamlets with a few families is not necessarily a "nation." And the I think that the notion of a promised land, as well as a cursed land, can travel with a covenant people. It's not tied to one location, nor one set of regional or geographic boundaries.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

My sentiments as well.

Larry P