When Lehi and his family landed in the New World

[Glenn101]

It almost a certainty that Lehi and his family met other people when they first landed in the New World. There is pretty good evidence that the areas of Mesoamerica where it is generally thought to have landed were already inhabited. The Book of Mormon is silent on this issue.

We know that Nephi became king of the group that broke away from their brethren and became the Nephites and Laman evidently became king or ruler of the other group.

My question is, how did they, a small group of people, become rulers over the native population with whom they mixed?

Were they a backwards people awed by the appearance of the Lehites, eager to have these strangers become their leaders?

Or were they one of the groups of people that the Lord had led to the land previously as noted in 2 nephi, chapter one? Did these people have prophesies, maybe legends about a people who should come to them by way of the ocean to lead them?

The second scenario seems more likely to me. And there may be other reasons also.

Just thought I would throw that out there before I hit he sack for the night. I had a wonderful New Year Day, at work.

Glenn

[lostindc]

It almost a certainty that Lehi and his family met other people when they first landed in the New World. There is pretty good evidence that the areas of Mesoamerica where it is generally thought to have landed were already inhabited. The Book of Mormon is silent on this issue.

We know that Nephi became king of the group that broke away from their brethren and became the Nephites and Laman evidently became king or ruler of the other group.

My question is, how did they, a small group of people, become rulers over the native population with whom they mixed?

Were they a backwards people awed by the appearance of the Lehites, eager to have these strangers become their leaders?

Or were they one of the groups of people that the Lord had led to the land previously as noted in 2 nephi, chapter one? Did these people have prophesies, maybe legends about a people who should come to them by way of the ocean to lead them?

The second scenario seems more likely to me. And there may be other reasons also.

Just thought I would throw that out there before I hit he sack for the night. I had a wonderful New Year Day, at work.

Glenn

I think it was a shock an awe type of thing

[The Dude]

Imagine the Native people clinging to a remnant of half understood rituals handed down from the lost civilization of Jaredites. Some hand shakes. Some signs and symbols. They know it is important, that it identifies rightful rulership, but they don't have the rest....

Along comes the Lehites with the rest of the puzzle. Instantly, the Natives recognize "masonic" symbols of brotherhood and accept Nephi (or Laman) as a chief ruler.

See "The Man Who Would be King" by Kipling, or the movie staring Sean Connery and Michael Caine. If the Book of Mormon were reissued as a proper novel, I imagine this kind of social mechanization would be detailed with high drama. As it came together in slipshod fashion, Joseph Smith et al. missed out and some good story tellin'.

[Jeff K.]

It might be as simple as conquest with a good organization. Perhaps new technologies along the lines of commerce or metallurgy. Military control that was not as centralized. Perhaps disease was introduced (as it was by the Spaniards). A myriad of possibilities exist..

[Hermes]

Imagine the Native people clinging to a remnant of half understood rituals handed down from the lost civilization of Jaredites. Some hand shakes. Some signs and symbols. They know it is important, that it identifies rightful rulership, but they don't have the rest....

Along comes the Lehites with the rest of the puzzle. Instantly, the Natives recognize "masonic" symbols of brotherhood and accept Nephi (or Laman) as a chief ruler.

See "The Man Who Would be King" by Kipling, or the movie staring Sean Connery and Michael Caine. If the Book of Mormon were reissued as a proper novel, I imagine this kind of social mechanization would be detailed with high drama. As it came together in slipshod fashion, Joseph Smith et al. missed out and some good story tellin'.

you're not here to make jokes. if this is the type of thing you want to contribute your days here are once again numbered. the mods believe you can add something honest and interesting, but do it respectfully or you will find yourself banned again. this isn't a threat, it's an explanation. so knock it off. ~hermes

[Glenn101]

It might be as simple as conquest with a good organization. Perhaps new technologies along the lines of commerce or metallurgy. Military control that was not as centralized. Perhaps disease was introduced (as it was by the Spaniards). A myriad of possibilities exist..

Subjugation of any sort does not seem plausible.

Glenn

[Cold Steel]

I believe the cultures they ran into showed an interest in their religion, at least until they found out about circumcision. I can't imagine who they ran into, but they undoubtedly must have been benign if they could just waltz in and occupy land. Maybe it was a colony of Greeks or some Chinese explorers. There had to be some Phoenicians in Mulek's band or in Nephi's (or some other) for a major river to be called Sidon.

Maybe they called the other river Tyre.

[The Dude]

you're not here to make jokes. if this is the type of thing you want to contribute your days here are once again numbered. the mods believe you can add something honest and interesting, but do it respectfully or you will find yourself banned again. this isn't a threat, it's an explanation. so knock it off. ~hermes

Hi Hermes. That was a serious suggested offered in a humorous way. Have you see the movie or read the book I mentioned?

Sorry about the offense. None intended.

[The Nehor]

I suspect they came across a feuding culture that had a lot of internal dissent. In comes a small influx of relatively educated but unattached newcomers. They may have been elevated to ruling simply because the inhabitants wanted an unbiased and educated leader from outside to keep the peace. I also suspect the same thing happened when the remnants of the Nephites fled and met the Mulekites. The Mulekites were much more numerous but had already had wars amongst themselves. They let the minority group of exiles lead to stabilize the area.

[The Dude]

I believe the cultures they ran into showed an interest in their religion, at least until they found out about circumcision.

LOL That was way funnier than what I said.

[cinepro]

Whatever happened, we still have to recognize that Nephi failed to mention it. He talks about the different kinds of goats, and some of the metals, but totally fails to mention all these people. I would not be surprised if someone finds a scrap of paper in the vaults and reveals to the world the lost verses of 1 Nephi 18:

1 Nephi 18

[25] And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper, and....

Holy cow! What the heck is that?!! There's like a bazillion people living in this valley. It's a huge city, and they've all got dark skin and black hair. And they're worshiping some sort of sun god or something! They're heathens! What are heathens doing in our promised land?!

Chapter 18.2

[1]And it came to pass that we did give these others beads and feathers, after which they were exceedingly friendly. And though we could not speak their language, we were able to convert many thousands of them unto Jesus Christ, who we believe will come sometime in the next 600 years or so. And behold, this was the greatest miracle granted unto the children of men of all the days of the Earth. For do we not know that God destroyed the Earth in the days of Noah, and the children of Moses were sent to destroy the heathens in the Promised Land, and not to convert them, lest they should become tainted with their religion?

[2] But lucky for these natives, we Lehites were sent not to cleanse the promised land of sun-worshipping heathens, but instead to convert as many of them as possible to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and live among those others who would not convert, ruling over them when possible, preaching when we can, but never affecting them to the point that our isolated, minority religion and hebraic culture would be discernible to the people of the time of the great seer I will tell you about in my next book.

[3] And it came to pass that my brothers were able to convert many of the people to hate us, and they became their leaders, even though we spoke Hebrew, and the many thousands of natives didn't know what the heck we were saying. I guess either we taught them Hebrew, or we learned their language, I rememberest not.

[4] And it came to pass that the people were impressed with the manner in which we did work metal, and use rounded wheels, and sat upon our horses for transportation instead of eating them. But nevertheless, they did quickly forget about our sharp, durable swords, and our rounded wheels, and the usefulness of the horses, even unto the second generation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

cinepro, we've been over this.

1. Nephi catalogs the animals they find in the new world, but fails to mention the indigenous peoples (1 Nephi 18:25).

Gardner: This comment demonstrates the problem of making too many assumptions about what a text is saying and what it should be saying. It assumes that the catalog of animals has the purpose of describing history. It doesn't. 1 Nephi is a crafted document and this verse was clearly written long after the fact and therefore isn't a journalistic recitation of what was found. 1 Nephi 18:24-25 simply defines the promised land as one with the necessities of life; along with the catalog of animals is the notation that they planted seeds which grew, fertility, and "ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper." It isn't that surprising, therefore, that the very next verse says "...wherefore I did make plates of ore that I might engraven..."3

[ryanelwood]

Whatever happened, we still have to recognize that Nephi failed to mention it. He talks about the different kinds of goats, and some of the metals, but totally fails to mention all these people. I would not be surprised if someone finds a scrap of paper in the vaults and reveals to the world the lost verses of 1 Nephi 18:

Cinparo, like LIfeOnaPlate has said, these issues have been addressed. Havn't you read those obscure passages that desparate apologists find "others" mentioned? With enough imagination and desire to believe in the LGT you can see these passages as mentioning others. Even you can do it! Then, just accept that Joseph Smith and Moroni were wrong about the Book of Mormon being a history of the ancient inhabitants of America. Then use desparate mental gymnastics to interpret that God was only using Lamanite as a title when talking about Zion and the missions to the Indians to teach them about their ancestors. You can do it Cinpero, just suspend rational thought and you will no longer see the lack of "others" in the Book of Mormon as an issue.

[Brant Gardner]

My question is, how did they, a small group of people, become rulers over the native population with whom they mixed?

That is a very good question, and one that isn't asked enough and rarely has a good answer. The typical answer has been that it would have been obvious because the Lehites were from a superior culture and therefore came providing technology and culture. That would have been a good argument if there were any kind of historical logic behind it at all. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Lehi had company were not a large enough group to have specialists in all sorts of Old World technologies. Metalsmithing would be a very obvious technology that is attested in the text (but not yet in archaeology). It is highly doubtful that any of Lehi's sons were potters or masons.

Lehi and company entered a world where they didn't know the lay of the land, where to find clay for their pots, what plants provided fiber for clothing, or what foodstuffs were most appropriate for this very different climate and conditions. Under those circumstances, they didn't bring too much with them.

My supposition certainly has to be speculative because there is nothing in the text that tells us how it happened. I suspect that when the Lehites first arrived they associated with a small hamlet. The larger cities might have had a social structure that was more difficult to penetrate and the rulers of those cities might want to keep the newcomers a little farther away. As part of the hamlet, they had a chance to be known. My suspicion is that a key to Nephi becoming king was metalworking. I think that provided a trade industry that increased the economic presence of the hamlet and provided enough economic and social benefits that there were some in the village who were willing to follow him "up" to what became the city of Nephi. There his status as the principal developer of the trade goods provided enough stature to first have him as leader of the transferred hamlet, and later as economic prosperity encouraged other hamlets to join, he was elevated to king. That general process appears to be the way Mesoamerican cities were formed (around basically a few entrpeneurs). It seems plausible that the same process occurred with Nephi.

Of course that begs the question of the presence of metalworking at that early date. I suspect that it was a trade limited to smaller sumptuary goods. The worked silver and gold were best suited for that type of trade item rather than a full-blown metal industry. I also suspect that they processes were jealously guarded because they were the economic base for the community (which could be devalued if there were a lot of competition).

[Jeff K.]

Subjugation of any sort does not seem plausible.

Glenn

Why is subjugation of any sort unlikely? A small cohesive and unite force can and often does trump larger armies on many different scales. Hannibla comes to mind, Alexander the Great does also... Mohammed is also reflective of a samller group able to eventually subjugate larger organizations that are less cohesive and less united.

[JeffM]

Whatever happened, we still have to recognize that Nephi failed to mention it. He talks about the different kinds of goats, and some of the metals, but totally fails to mention all these people. I would not be surprised if someone finds a scrap of paper in the vaults and reveals to the world the lost verses of 1 Nephi 18:

It looks to me like 2nd Nephi teaches that no one was in the land when Lehi arrived. Consider these passages in chapter 1:

6 Wherefore, 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.

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

8 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.

9 Wherefore, 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 and they shall dwell safely forever.

What sense does it make to say that, by keeping the commandments, the people brought "out of the land of Jerusalem" would be kept from all other nations and possess the land unto themselves when other nations were already in the land? I wonder if the belief among Mormons that Lehi's group was alone in the land changed only after archaeology began to reveal it was an untenable position.

[Brant Gardner]

Why is subjugation of any sort unlikely? A small cohesive and unite force can and often does trump larger armies on many different scales.

Not when the numerical difference is that great. Nephi leaves with maybe 10 members of his family. The entire landing party might have been around 30, including women and children. That isn't enough to conquer any real resistance. Look at Magellan's death at the hands of natives even though he had superior firepower available. Nephi didn't have the advantage of either superior weaponry or military training. The Lehites would have been easily outmatched in any battle with locals.

[Brant Gardner]

What sense does it make to say that, by keeping the commandments, the people brought "out of the land of Jerusalem" would be kept from all other nations and possess the land unto themselves when other nations were already in the land?

It actually makes no sense unless there were others in the land. If there was no threat that anyone would threaten them, then there was no function in providing the promise and it would never have been invoked. Instead, the text invokes the promise frequently, and does so even after the Nephites are removed from the city of Nephi into Zarahemla. The promise followed the people and depended upon their righteousness. They saw it as a living and important promise dependent upon righteousness, not upon the lucky fact that there wasn't anyone around.

What kind of promise is it if I promise you that placing cloves of garlic on you front lawn will keep elephants away?

I wonder if the belief among Mormons that Lehi's group was alone in the land changed only after archaeology began to reveal it was an untenable position.

The shift in reading the text came with increasing sophistication of the people reading the text. The more that was known about anthropology and history, the more those disciplines were brought to the text instead of the a-historic reading that had been popular. I haven't seen any real evidence that the approach to the Book of Mormon was a reaction to archaeology. You will find a significant shift beginning with Hugh Nibley, who was blissfully unaware of most New World archaeology.

The significant changes in the way we understand the text have come from a greater appreciation of historical texts and an attempt to take the Book of Mormon at its word as an ancient historical text. That discipline has required some changes in positions that were developed early in the church when the text's readers didn't have the education in those disciplines. Nevertheless, the change has happened because we are being stricter in our reading of the text as history, not looser.

Your example of an "empty land" is a perfect example of how the new critical reading expects more reality of the text than the tradition "literal" reading. If the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, then it should describe lands appropriately for an ancient people who didn't understand the world as we know it. In such texts, it is not unusual to speak of "all the land" and mean a limited area. That is history. "All the land" as a hemisphere is a modern presumption pushed onto the text.

[ERayR]

Nephi and his group not only were too small to use force but it was not Nephi's way of doing things. I think a glimps of what happened is in 2 Nephi 5:10-18. They came, they taught, they prospered. He taught them and they prospered so they followed that which helped them to prosper. It's as simple as someone bringing them something that improved their lives.

10 And we did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses.

11 And the Lord was with us; and we did aprosper exceedingly; for we did sow seed, and we did reap again in abundance. And we began to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind.

12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or compass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.

13 And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land.

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomonâ??s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did cause my people to be aindustrious, and to labor with their hands.

18 And it came to pass that they would that I should be their king. But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king; nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power.

[JeffM]

It actually makes no sense unless there were others in the land. If there was no threat that anyone would threaten them, then there was no function in providing the promise and it would never have been invoked. Instead, the text invokes the promise frequently, and does so even after the Nephites are removed from the city of Nephi into Zarahemla. The promise followed the people and depended upon their righteousness. They saw it as a living and important promise dependent upon righteousness, not upon the lucky fact that there wasn't anyone around.

What kind of promise is it if I promise you that placing cloves of garlic on you front lawn will keep elephants away?

I think your reasoning does violence to the text. The threat is not that people already in the land will come after them but that people not yet in the land (because they don't know it exists) will be allowed to arrive there, thus ending the isolation that is the foundation of the Lehites' present security. I understand that the threat hinges on their condition of righteousness. However, it is first given in 2nd Nephi when the people have just arrived and have not yet had an opportunity to violate the condition. The current attitude of Lehi is "It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations".

The shift in reading the text came with increasing sophistication of the people reading the text.

I agree that there was a lack of sophistication among those who first read this text. This brings up the interesting question of how much that lack of sophistication contributed to their acceptance of it as genuine history in the first place.

If the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, then it should describe lands appropriately for an ancient people who didn't understand the world as we know it. In such texts, it is not unusual to speak of "all the land" and mean a limited area. That is history. "All the land" as a hemisphere is a modern presumption pushed onto the text.

It might also be said that if the Book of Mormon is a recent text produced by unsophisticated people, then it will still describe lands appropriately for people who didn't understand the world as we know it. Such a situation would also cause a need for the type of correction you want to introduce here.

Many people of great authority in the Mormon church over the years have interpreted the 2nd Nephi passage the way I have above. Although you certainly have the right to re-interpret things in Mormon sacred books, shouldn't you verify it with the prophets, who are presumably in a position to know for sure? On the other hand, if the prophets aren't in a position to know, then what we actually see would make sense - scholars who are loyal to the tradition leading an attempt to correct errors of the past. However, one is forced to wonder if that loyalty allows the scholars to see where the errors really are.

[The Dude]

It actually makes no sense unless there were others in the land. If there was no threat that anyone would threaten them, then there was no function in providing the promise and it would never have been invoked. Instead, the text invokes the promise frequently, and does so even after the Nephites are removed from the city of Nephi into Zarahemla. The promise followed the people and depended upon their righteousness. They saw it as a living and important promise dependent upon righteousness, not upon the lucky fact that there wasn't anyone around.

Well Brant, in hemispheric terms it makes a lot of sense if there were human migrations going on across Pacific Islands, around Africa and the Indian Ocean, and across the Arctic ice from both directions. Then the promise means God will keep any of them from laying hold of North and South America except they be righteous people.

What kind of promise is it if I promise you that placing cloves of garlic on you front lawn will keep elephants away?

Coming from you we can see right through such a promise, but if it came from God then very many people would believe in the power of the garlic. It reminds me of the rainbow=no watery destruction promise. It is physically impossible to destroy the whole world with water, but there we have a rainbow so the apparent physical impossibility must result from God, right?

But anyway, as I said, the promise makes perfect hemispheric sense in keeping "others" out of the Americas, except that's obviously not what happened (we now know). Archaeology is the reason, and in response an increasing sophistication of apologetic reframing... that sometimes gets stretched to the limit of credibility.

[emeliza]

Imagine the Native people clinging to a remnant of half understood rituals handed down from the lost civilization of Jaredites. Some hand shakes. Some signs and symbols. They know it is important, that it identifies rightful rulership, but they don't have the rest....

Along comes the Lehites with the rest of the puzzle. Instantly, the Natives recognize "masonic" symbols of brotherhood and accept Nephi (or Laman) as a chief ruler.

See "The Man Who Would be King" by Kipling, or the movie staring Sean Connery and Michael Caine. If the Book of Mormon were reissued as a proper novel, I imagine this kind of social mechanization would be detailed with high drama. As it came together in slipshod fashion, Joseph Smith et al. missed out and some good story tellin'.

If I had to vote, I would say this was it. Even though told with a bit of irony, this is often how such stories happen. The newcomer wins the hearts of the villagers with their newer technology and such.

[Brant Gardner]

I think your reasoning does violence to the text.

That would be unfortunate, were it true. Of course I don't believe so. Before we can discern such things, on what principles does one read an ancient text? Should ancient texts behave in some ways similarly to others? Wouldn't it be doing violence to a text to read it with a modern lens instead of an ancient one?

The threat is not that people already in the land will come after them but that people not yet in the land (because they don't know it exists) will be allowed to arrive there, thus ending the isolation that is the foundation of the Lehites' present security.

That is the way you clearly understand the text. However, that isn't necessarily what the text means. It certainly isn't the way the text interprets the very promise you are reading that way. If we have a question about how a certain promise is to be read, should we not accept the way the text interprets it rather than the modern reader?

I understand that the threat hinges on their condition of righteousness. However, it is first given in 2nd Nephi when the people have just arrived and have not yet had an opportunity to violate the condition.

Which is violated by chapter 5 in 2 Nephi with the separation of the Nephites and Lamanites. While we don't have a firm picture of how long it was, it was certainly earlier than 30 years since the departure from Jerusalem. According the promise, it was no longer in place based on the Lamanite defection. Nevertheless, the Nephites didn't read it that way and believed that it protected them, even in their various conflicts with the Lamanites. Since the promise is given to Lehi, if it deals with an empty land, it couldn't be invoked for over 2000 years. That isn't much of a promise and certainly isn't the way the text invokes the promise.

The current attitude of Lehi is "It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations".

Two questions. 1)How big is a land? 2) How far away does the other nation have to be?

I agree that there was a lack of sophistication among those who first read this text. This brings up the interesting question of how much that lack of sophistication contributed to their acceptance of it as genuine history in the first place.

Since there were very few in 1830 with much sophistication in such things (both anthropology and archaeology being sciences that were developed later, and history had much different "rules" at that time) it is rather a moot question.

It might also be said that if the Book of Mormon is a recent text produced by unsophisticated people, then it will still describe lands appropriately for people who didn't understand the world as we know it.

That is the problem, isn't it? There are any number of ways for a text claiming to be ancient to be wrong. However, making incorrect assumptions and then using those assumptions to declare it wrong is hardly the way to go about testing the hypothesis.

The trick, of course, is to discern whether or not the text fits into the historical context it claims. Once cannot correctly examine that question if we insist on reading the text differently from any possible meaning it could have had in the historical context.

Such a situation would also cause a need for the type of correction you want to introduce here.

You seem to think that my only reason for suggesting that it was an ancient text is based on re-reading the text to excuse potential errors. If you do, you are quite mistaken. Once the text is taken seriously as an ancient text, it can be tested in the same ways other ancient texts are tested against a cultural/historical background. That is what bolsters the reading I suggest.

Many people of great authority in the Mormon church over the years have interpreted the 2nd Nephi passage the way I have above.

Another question. When examining a text's claims, what is more important--what the text says or what someone says about it?

Although you certainly have the right to re-interpret things in Mormon sacred books, shouldn't you verify it with the prophets, who are presumably in a position to know for sure?

As one who sustains prophets and has read many of their statements about Book of Mormon geography (which leads rather directly to history), I can say that your assumption that they are "presumably in a position to know for sure" is incorrect and contradicts what they have officially said on the subject.

Should I accept that they have said about what is known for sure, or your assertion of what you think they should know?

one is forced to wonder if that loyalty allows the scholars to see where the errors really are.

It is fine to wonder. It is better to find out. The work of the scholars is available for examination. You are quite free to decide, based on evidence, whether or not the scholars approach the text appropriately. It is not adequate, however, to make the assertion that "one is forced to wonder" and use that simply assertion as though it had any probative force.

I have been through pretty much every LDS scholar's writings on the Book of Mormon and have done some of my own. I could point out places where there might be errors, but I am pretty sure that nothing I am aware of fits anywhere near the category you are asserting it might belong to.

I would be happy if you would like to discuss actual evidence from some of those assertions.

[Brant Gardner]

Well Brant, in hemispheric terms it makes a lot of sense if there were human migrations going on across Pacific Islands, around Africa and the Indian Ocean, and across the Arctic ice from both directions. Then the promise means God will keep any of them from laying hold of North and South America except they be righteous people.

The problem is that it makes no sense to make a promise that is unnecessary. It is also true that they would be protected from the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. It just doesn't make any sense to tell someone that.

The next problem comes when you examine the way the promise appears in the text. It never emphasizes the lack of opponents, only the protection from them.

Coming from you we can see right through such a promise, but if it came from God then very many people would believe in the power of the garlic.

The real question is still how the promise is interpreted inside the text, not form the outside in. That leads us directly to examine how that promise is worked out in the text. When we do, it doesn't read as though anyone thought that it dealt with an empty land. That is an interpretation based on modern readings of a few verses, but not reading the text the way the text interprets the promise.

Archaeology is the reason, and in response an increasing sophistication of apologetic reframing... that sometimes gets stretched to the limit of credibility.

Let me see if I understand this. Archaeology and anthropology are pretty good indicators of the past, so we should accept many of their findings (leaving them room to acquire new information, of course). However, if LDS scholars use those disciplines to take a tougher and more controlled look at the Book of Mormon, then this is "apologetic reframing"?

The way ancient texts have been examined often undergo reframing, based upon the better tools and information that have been developed. The Bible is a prime example of this. However, the reframing of the Bible often leads to better understanding of the ancient milieu of the text rather than a more simplistic (and perhaps fundamentalist) reading of the text. I don't see that process as a problem.

As for sometimes being "stretched to the limit of credibility," we would have to deal with specifics rather than generalities. I know in my work on the text I work very hard to deal only with the information that I can comfortably fit into attested contexts - without straining credibility or credulity.

[Bender]

JeffM

What sense does it make to say that, by keeping the commandments, the people brought "out of the land of Jerusalem" would be kept from all other nations and possess the land unto themselves when other nations were already in the land? I wonder if the belief among Mormons that Lehi's group was alone in the land changed only after archaeology began to reveal it was an untenable position.

It doesn't, but we need to remember that reinterpretation is the lifeblood of Religion.