When Lehi and his family landed in the New World

[The Dude]

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.

?? With a hemispheric reading of the BoM, the promise was necessary. People were trying to get here and God was supposed to keep them out.

Yes, I realize I am assuming stuff about "what the text really says" (according to Brant Gardner) but all I'm saying is that the promise makes perfect sense with a hemispheric view and an empty continent aside from Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites. It was empty, was supposed to be an empty continent, because of God's promise. Your examples are off the mark.

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.

Absence of a shade of nuance is far from definitive.

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.

That's fine for you. I'm not arguing how Brant reads the text one way or another because it isn't going to be definitive about what it "really means". (That's something that cannot be said without scare quotes, BTW).

[Brant Gardner]

?? With a hemispheric reading of the BoM, the promise was necessary. People were trying to get here and God was supposed to keep them out.

It certainly made sense to those who read it that way. From the modern perspective, it explained why the Old World didn't now about the New until much later.

It just doesn't make much sense inside the text.

Absence of a shade of nuance is far from definitive.

It isn't the shade of nuance. It is how the promise is effectualized in the text. It is how the people living under the promise interpreted it. Now, you could certainly take exception with the way I read the way they read the promise, but that shouldn't be done without engaging the data.

[The Dude]

It certainly made sense to those who read it that way. From the modern perspective, it explained why the Old World didn't now about the New until much later.

Exactly. It makes sense the way many people read the text, have read the text, have read the way the ancients read the promise (or whatever).

It just doesn't make much sense inside the text.

Show me the verses that disallow it.

It isn't the shade of nuance. It is how the promise is effectualized in the text. It is how the people living under the promise interpreted it. Now, you could certainly take exception with the way I read the way they read the promise, but that shouldn't be done without engaging the data.

"the way I read the way they read the promise"... sure has a ring to it. You want me to engage that? Just show me the verses you are talking about.

[Brant Gardner]

Just show me the verses you are talking about.

Here is the list of verses that reiterate the foundational promise. Notice that only once does the promise have the elaborated form that talks specifically about being kept from other nations. That suggests that that phrase was not the important part of the promise, since the promise is referenced often, but never with that phrase.

Notice also the places where the context is one of conflict and enemies. The promise didn't keep them from "other nations," because there were "other nations" that attacked them. Nevertheless, the promise was invoked. Also note the case from Alma's blessing to his son where the promise is made personal. This is repeated for other sons, but I left out the repetitions.

20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.

(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 2:20)

14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 4:14)

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.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 1:9)

20 And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 1:20)

4 For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 4:4)

9 And thus being prepared to meet the Lamanites, they did not prosper against us. But the word of the Lord was verified, which he spake unto our fathers, saying that: Inasmuch as ye will keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land.

10 And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of the land.

(Book of Mormon | Jarom 1:9 - 10)

6 For the Lord would not suffer, after he had led them out of the land of Jerusalem and kept and preserved them from falling into the hands of their enemies, yea, he would not suffer that the words should not be verified, which he spake unto our fathers, saying that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall not prosper in the land.

7 Wherefore, the Lord did visit them in great judgment; nevertheless, he did spare the righteous that they should not perish, but did deliver them out of the hands of their enemies.

(Book of Mormon | Omni 1:6 - 7)

22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 2:22)

31 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should do as ye have hitherto done. As ye have kept my commandments, and also the commandments of my father, and have prospered, and have been kept from falling into the hands of your enemies, even so if ye shall keep the commandments of my son, or the commandments of God which shall be delivered unto you by him, ye shall prosper in the land, and your enemies shall have no power over you.

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 2:31)

13 Behold, do ye not remember the words which he spake unto Lehi, saying that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land? And again it is said that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

14 Now I would that ye should remember, that inasmuch as the Lamanites have not kept the commandments of God, they have been cut off from the presence of the Lord. Now we see that the word of the Lord has been verified in this thing, and the Lamanites have been cut off from his presence, from the beginning of their transgressions in the land.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 9:13 - 14)

30 But behold, my son, this is not all; for ye ought to know as I do know, that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land; and ye ought to know also, that inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence. Now this is according to his word.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 36:30) Note that this is a personalized version of the promise. It is reiterated for an individual, not a people.

15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;

16 And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 48:15 - 16)

24 Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites.

25 Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 48:24 - 25)

19 And thus we see how merciful and just are all the dealings of the Lord, to the fulfilling of all his words unto the children of men; yea, we can behold that his words are verified, even at this time, which he spake unto Lehi, saying:

20 Blessed art thou and thy children; and they shall be blessed, inasmuch as they shall keep my commandments they shall prosper in the land. But remember, inasmuch as they will not keep my commandments they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

21 And we see that these promises have been verified to the people of Nephi; for it has been their quarrelings and their contentions, yea, their murderings, and their plunderings, their idolatry, their whoredoms, and their abominations, which were among themselves, which brought upon them their wars and their destructions.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 50:19 - 21)

22 And insomuch as the children of Lehi have kept his commandments he hath blessed them and prospered them according to his word.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 5:22)

[sethpayne]

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 the most simple explanation is that the BoM is 19th century fiction.

[The Nehor]

I shall present the portions of the small plates Mormon cut for space revealed to me either by prophecy or my dinner not sitting well in my stomach:

And I Nephi, did discover that the land was filled with people. I built a tower and in the midst of this tower did place the Liahona. I then called upon God with my hand upon it and cried unto him, saying, "What shall we do as we are a small people and there are many around us that do not believe and we shall be absorbed by them. Therefore, what shall we do that we may rule them instead?"

And God answered saying, "Build me an army worthy of Kolob." and I did head into the wilderness and God led me to a tarpit and commanded me that I should dig. I dug and discovered the remains of a dragon which is in the language of the inhabitants, Velociraptor. God commanded me to raise the creature from the dead and I did so. It gave birth quickly and I and my brethren began to train the raptors to prepare them for war. We still knew that we were too few even with this advantage as the tapir cavalry of the inhabitants were frightful. I therefore did use the power given to me to restore the dead to a semblance of life and granted them the power to pass on their dead but animated state to those they did bite. We did call them zombies and sent them forth to feast upon the inhabitants of the land and they began to fear greatly as they barricaded their homes and food began to run short as the pawing dead tried to enter. They then began to repent and call out to God to save them.

They did beg us to lift this course and repented of their wicked intentions to us and we did lift the curse once they swore to obey us in all things. We did then make them hewers of wood and carriers of water even unto this day though I have been told that our seed shall mingle with their seed and it shall be called our seed even until the end of the world.

[peeps]

I'm voting for Nehor's explanation. It's at least the most amusing. Plus, you can't go wrong with a zombie army.

[The Nehor]

Plus, you can't go wrong with a zombie army.

I'm going to add this to my "Quotes to live by" list.

[The Dude]

Here is the list of verses that reiterate the foundational promise. Notice that only once does the promise have the elaborated form that talks specifically about being kept from other nations. That suggests that that phrase was not the important part of the promise, since the promise is referenced often, but never with that phrase.

Let me see if I get this. "Other nations" was worth passing into the record when the first, formalized promise was recorded from the mouth of Lehi. Subsequent repetitions of the promise, uttered by Lehi's descendants, used an informal version of the promise that referred to "enemies" rather than "other nations". Why did they do this? Well, when the formal promise was first recorded it was before Laman and Lemuel and their families had gone off and started the Lamanites. At this early time, other nations were the main imagined threat, presumably Old world nations. Eventually the Lamanites formed and then it started to make sense to speak about enemies (Lamanites) rather than other nations. It makes sense inside the text as the perception of threats shifted: Lamanites became the enemies but they were not described as another nation (since they came directly from Laman and Lemuel). Could that be why they stopped talking about "other nations"? Gee, that kind of makes sense in a hemispheric way, where people of Lehi found themselves in an empty land. No other nations, but there were enemies.

[ERayR]

I think the most simple explanation is that the BoM is 19th century fiction.

Simple explanations are for simple minds but may not be correct.

[phaedrus ut]

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:

I'm with Cinepro here. It's strange to arrive in a new land with hundreds of thousands in exiting population, cities and urban centers, a unique language, culture, art, technology, religion, food, customs, political and social structure and never make mention of it. It's unfathomable to me that at a detailed narrative like that of the BOM wouldn't make the discovery of a new civilization, along with the related details, a primary observation.

People here say "it's been covered..." "Your expectations of the text are unreasonable..". I've never seen it addressed without double talk and I don't think that it's and unreasonable.

I can't see how to speculate on an accent as rulers over a people that are absent from the story.

Phaedrus

[cinepro]

It's strange to arrive in a new land with hundreds of thousands in exiting population, cities and urban centers, a unique language, culture, art, technology, religion, food, customs, political and social structure and never make mention of it. It's unfathomable to me that at a detailed narrative like that of the BOM wouldn't make the discovery of a new civilization, along with the related details, a primary observation.

Phaedrus

And ultimately, the story of meeting the "others" turns into one of the greatest conversion stories in the history of mankind. In a book that focuses on the gospel, what could be more relevant than finding a new land and converting the existing pagan population to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It would be an order of magnitude greater than any other missionary story recounted in Mosiah or Alma.

It would be like if the ancient Israelites converted all the Canaanites instead of killing them. Conversion is much harder. And there isn't a single mention of it.

[JeffM]

JeffM: I think your reasoning does violence to the text.

Brant Gardner: 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 Book of Mormon is not an ancient text. There are enough anachronisms in 1st Nephi alone to rule out that possibility. I think only people coached at the very beginning of their studies into believing that it is ancient could come to such a conclusion. Of course once that mindset is ingrained, there's no telling how long it will last.

JeffM: 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.

Brant Gardner: 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?

My interpretation flows from the plain meaning of the words. Your interpretation was never thought of until it became apparent that the Book of Mormon was in danger of being shown false on this point. I think it then became a matter of protecting that which wasn't allowed to be false.

JeffM: 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.

Brant Gardner: 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.

I'm not sure where the mention of 2000 years comes from. I guess you mean the time from Lehi's arrival until the coming of Christopher Columbus (from 600 B.C. to 1492 A.D. - just over 2000 years) - i.e. presumably the arrival of the first non-Lehite people. If the length of the gap between violation of the condition for retaining hiddenness and the arrival of the first non-Lehites means the promise lacked teeth, who's fault is that? God could have allowed people into the land at any time after its hiddenness was no longer enforced. If no one actually came for 2000 years, either he chose not to enforce the promise earlier or the promise was part of a fictional story to begin with, and would be expected to be inconsistent with what actually happened in the land.

I also think your earlier comment about the violation of the condition misses the point. The significant issue is not the point in time when the "hiddenness" of the land was no longer enforced. Rather, it's the fact that at the time of Lehi's statement, the land was hidden and inaccessible to other nations, which means no one was there. In other words, the land should have been empty at around 600 BC.

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

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

Joseph Smith himself says enough for us to know that the land extended well into North America. (e.g. Zelph, etc.) However, it's interesting how many times semantics are called on to protect the Book of Mormon from those who read its words plainly. It makes you wonder what the first Mormons did without modern scholars to correct their constant misunderstandings. Perhaps they believed things that weren't true? Of course if they were capable of that, then what sense does it make to approach the Book of Mormon (which they also believed) as something that can't be false? The fact is, the obvious anachronisms in the Book of Mormon should have been recognized long ago, in which case questions about the reality of Lehi's voyage to the "land of promise" would have never come up.

JeffM: 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.

Brant Gardner: 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 is not moot at all. The more widespread the lack of sophistication, the more likely it played a role in the acceptance of things that wouldn't be accepted today - e.g. the Book of Mormon as genuine history.

JeffM: 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.

Brant Gardner: 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. One 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.

The anachronisms in the text give plenty of insight into its historical context - a 19th century retrofit. What incorrect assumption are you speaking of - that the early Mormon fathers were right about the extent of the emptiness of the promised land? I'm happy to grant that they were wrong about a great many things, among which I would include the existence of the Lehite group.

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

Brant Gardner: 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.

The text cannot be taken seriously as ancient by any clear thinking person because it is anachronistic to the gills - constantly quoting future books and ideas.

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

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

Do you disagree with the views of earlier Mormon authorities because of what the text actually says or because of what it does not say?

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

Brant: It is fine to wonder. It is better to find out. The work of the scholars is available for examination.

My impression of Mormon scholars from what I have read (i.e. Nibley, Peterson, etc) is that, when a pivotal doctrine is at stake, all their energies are devoted to protecting the doctrine at all costs even if it means embracing points of view that would be considered outlandish in other contexts. For example, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc., are not allowed to be found false no matter what alternative must be held.

[Bender]

cinepro Posted Today, 10:37 AM

And ultimately, the story of meeting the "others" turns into one of the greatest conversion stories in the history of mankind. In a book that focuses on the gospel, what could be more relevant than finding a new land and converting the existing pagan population to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It would be an order of magnitude greater than any other missionary story recounted in Mosiah or Alma.

It would be like if the ancient Israelites converted all the Canaanites instead of killing them. Conversion is much harder. And there isn't a single mention of it.

Indeed. I find it interesting that the Bible mentions many other groups.

[phaedrus ut]

Indeed. I find it interesting that the Bible mentions many other groups.

I've never considered the bible the most relevant comparable text to the BOM in testing it's authenticity. Clearly the BOM borrows heavily from the Biblical tradition and specifically the KJV. In testing the historicity of the BOM I wouldn't say just because the bible has something the BOM should too.

Phaedrus

[Bender]

phaedrus ut Posted Today, 12:01 PM

I've never considered the bible the most relevant comparable text to the BOM in testing it's authenticity. Clearly the BOM borrows heavily from the Biblical tradition and specifically the KJV. In testing the historicity of the BOM I wouldn't say just because the bible has something the BOM should too.

The idea is comparing the bible, which is an accepted collection of ancient writings, to the BoM. Certainly what is written in the bible is up for debate as to how accurate the information is. We see though that the writers do tell many stories, which certainly may be fabrications, but they also make mention many times of other groups that they may be aware of or interact with in their stories. Some who claim the LGT say there were many people already here when Nephi arrived, but the text does not mention any group other than the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehi's group. If as some propose that these groups interacted to such a level as joining some of these groups and becoming there leaders, no mention of them does seem very odd.

[cinepro]

The Lehite conversion of the indigenous pagans would also offer an interesting precedent for missionary work throughout the rest of the BoM. At the very least, I can imagine the Sons of Mosiah being inspired by the story of their ancestors long ago converting whole populations.

Even today, it would offer a useful template for opening new countries to missionary work. Will the first missionaries in mainland China really be facing a much greater task than the Lehites were upon landfall?

[Glenn101]

The Lehite conversion of the indigenous pagans would also offer an interesting precedent for missionary work throughout the rest of the BoM. At the very least, I can imagine the Sons of Mosiah being inspired by the story of their ancestors long ago converting whole populations.

Even today, it would offer a useful template for opening new countries to missionary work. Will the first missionaries in mainland China really be facing a much greater task than the Lehites were upon landfall?

The original theme of this thread has been derailed a bit. The conversion of a whole native population by the Lehite party at the first is not really supported by the text. Missionary work and conversion is noted specifically later on. I have read stories of men from advanced civilizations going among backwards people and being hailed as gods and the such, but I really do not know of any nonfiction accounts of such happening.

The story of Cortez among the Inca's may be one such actual historical event.

But here we have a small group of outsiders landing and being accepted apparently readily by a local population of unknown size and in short order these newcomers become the leaders of this local population.

It has been suggested that the advanced technological knowledge by the Lehites, specifically metallurgy, may have been a contributing factor to acceptance, it comes up short in explaining how that acceptance translated into leadership.

It is my pet theory right now that the local population were some who had been "led away" by the Lord earlier, and had prophesies among them of people who were to come by sea to teach and lead them. In light of the Cortez/Inca history, this is not implausible.

Glenn

[The Dude]

It is my pet theory right now that the local population were some who had been "led away" by the Lord earlier, and had prophesies among them of people who were to come by sea to teach and lead them. In light of the Cortez/Inca history, this is not implausible.

Francisco Pizarro conquered the Inca, not Cortez.

Now what does Pizarro's murderous plundering have to do with making your pet BoM theory more plausible? I'm not seeing the connection.

[Glenn101]

Francisco Pizarro conquered the Inca, not Cortez.

You are correct. I have forgotten too many details from my ancient history.

Now what does Pizarro's murderous plundering have to do with making your pet BoM theory more plausible? I'm not seeing the connection.

It was not Pizarro and the Incas, it was Cortez and the Queztacoatl legends that he exploited in his conquest of Mexico and Montezuma. The pnly connection I was trying to make is that there were legends of a white skinned, bearded god among the Aztecs and some, maybe many of the natives though that Cortez may have been that god returned.

In a like fashion, the land where Lehi and his extended family landed may have been inhabited by a people led away previously by God who left with them prophecies about the eventual coming of Lehi and his family, which would have made their assimilation and acceptance by the local people much easier.

Glenn

[Sargon]

Let me see if I get this. "Other nations" was worth passing into the record when the first, formalized promise was recorded from the mouth of Lehi. Subsequent repetitions of the promise, uttered by Lehi's descendants, used an informal version of the promise that referred to "enemies" rather than "other nations". Why did they do this? Well, when the formal promise was first recorded it was before Laman and Lemuel and their families had gone off and started the Lamanites. At this early time, other nations were the main imagined threat, presumably Old world nations. Eventually the Lamanites formed and then it started to make sense to speak about enemies (Lamanites) rather than other nations. It makes sense inside the text as the perception of threats shifted: Lamanites became the enemies but they were not described as another nation (since they came directly from Laman and Lemuel). Could that be why they stopped talking about "other nations"? Gee, that kind of makes sense in a hemispheric way, where people of Lehi found themselves in an empty land. No other nations, but there were enemies.

Emphasis mine.

Not so fast! If we back up to 2 Nephi 1:5, a verse that Gardner did not include in his list, we read:

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.

Kevin Christensen comments:

Notice that from the start, possession of the promised land is not just conditional, as we have seen, but also nonexclusive. Note also that there is no requirement that the "other countries" be located in the Old World.

Before explaining about the covenant for the land, Lehi reminds his children that, besides themselves, the land contains "all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" (2 Nephi 1:5). This remark comes before any reported contact with the Mulekites or the several indications of Jaredite remnants. Why does Lehi make this point about others being led to the land? He very likely knew about them. Nephi's vision of the promised land, granted before the ocean voyage, may refer to these others:

And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, even as it were in number as many as the sands of the sea. (1 Nephi 12:1)

Reading this passage as describing non-Lehite multitudes existing in the New World before the voyage makes Lehi's remarks about "other nations" (2 Nephi 1:8, 11) in relation to the covenant curse more meaningful. Lehi taught that a law cannot function without an attached punishment (2 Nephi 2:13), and if the "other nations" referred to in the promised land covenant would not arrive until Columbus's voyage, how would the covenant curse have any immediate significance? It makes sense to suppose that from the beginning Lehi knows that his people are not alone, and he wants his sons to be sobered by the fact. An immediate expectation of other nations on the part of Nephi and Lehi, possibly even interaction with small groups of natives early on (who could signify other nations without representing such), makes the whole story more consistent and meaningful.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=193

[wavesforthedeaf]

I hate to state the obvious here, but shouldn't it strike us as telling that the more we learn about how ancient America actually was, the smaller and more obscure the Book of Mormon story must be imagined by apologists in order to keep it within the realm of supposed possibility?

I mean, after DNA testing, the Book of Mormon goes from this epic tale of a huge tribe that encompasses the whole continent to Lehi and his band of merry men in some undiscovered tiny corner of the American wilderness.

It really is silly - and the mental gymnastics involved are pathetically transparent.

[Sargon]

I hate to state the obvious here, but shouldn't it strike us as telling that the more we learn about how ancient America actually was, the smaller and more obscure the Book of Mormon story must be imagined by apologists in order to keep it within the realm of supposed possibility?

I mean, after DNA testing, the Book of Mormon goes from this epic tale of a huge tribe that encompasses the whole continent to Lehi and his band of merry men in some undiscovered tiny corner of the American wilderness.

It really is silly - and the mental gymnastics involved are pathetically transparent.

How is it different than any other science which must evolve as it learns more? Should we use the sciences in our study of Mormonism or not? It looks like we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

The truth is, the LGT was already being bandied about long before the relatively recent DNA controversy surfaced. I find it interesting that if LDS scholars are having to force the BoM story into a "smaller and more obscure" geographical area--allegedly due to the powerful arguments of critics--the proposed area by LDS scholars happens to match the text of the BoM far better than previous traditions.

[wavesforthedeaf]

How is it different than any other science which must evolve as it learns more? Should we use the sciences in our study of Mormonism or not? It looks like we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

It's different from science, because science follows the evidence wherever it leads. Apologists, by definition, are doing all of their research and reasoning based on a foregone conclusion. I think the emergence of LGT is telling, because it shows that the imagined Book of Mormon scenario has to be put on a smaller and smaller scale as more evidence emerges. The pattern suggested here is that if all the evidence were known, the possible Book of Mormon scenarios would be zero. Once again, stating the obvious here.

The truth is, the LGT was already being bandied about long before the relatively recent DNA controversy surfaced. I find it interesting that if LDS scholars are having to force the BoM story into a "smaller and more obscure" geographical area--allegedly due to the powerful arguments of critics--the proposed area by LDS scholars happens to match the text of the BoM far better than previous traditions.

LGT was not spawned from a closer reading of the text and you know it. People started wonder where all the... yknow.. huge cities and mass graves were in North America and had to use their imagination to come up with something slightly more plausible.

It's not like the Book of Mormon is this ridiculously complex text that gives us more historical insight the closer we read it. The changes are coming from the outside in - not the other way around.

My other beef with LGT is that it blatantly ignores the fact that even if the Book of Mormon were true, everything we know about it comes from Joseph Smith. You would think Joseph Smith would be considered a trustworthy authority on the subject - since we're essentially taking him on his word that the book is legitimate in the first place. Apologists should not find it so easy to ignore everything he said about Book of Mormon geography. If you take Joseph at his word - the Book of Mormon spanned the continent and the Hill Cumorah, yknow, actually was the Hill Cumorah. To me, it seems arbitrary and desperate.

[Sargon]

Since your steering this off topic, and since your arguments are tedious and have been discussed and refuted many many many times before, I'll let you do your own research on that one. You can start here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_geography

Or, you can open your own thread.