Simon Southerton On Mormonstories

[Jaybear]

Look up "principal" in the dictionary. It does not mean what you think it does.

There was nothing wrong with the statement in the Introduction, but was changed to accommodate the yokels who don't know their own language.

CFR. My impression had been that the powers that be who made the change did so without consulting with you, or explaining it to you.

If you have some insight as to who made this decision, and why it was made, by all means, please share it.

[Robert F. Smith]

And what samples would they be compared to? Scientists are focused on European not pre-Diaspora "Jewish" DNA.

They alredy have haplogroup X and have been unable to exactly match it to the Siberians. The study on this concluded that there were significant differences, and sugggested that further research was required.

Of course they did not bother to look at the Druze. According to Wiki, "the greatest frequency of haplogroup X is observed in the Druze, a minority population in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria". I don't know if there were subsequent studies on the Druze but, since they are in the Middle East, it is unlikely.

It might help to first review the evidence on worldwide Jewish DNA testing:

See the doctoral dissertation study by Doron Behar at the Haifa Technion and Rambam Medical Center, under the supervision of Karl Skorecki, and published in the online January 11, 2006, issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, according to which 40% of Ashkenazi Jews (3.5 million of the 8 million Ashkenazi Jews) are descended from just four “founding mothers” in Europe about 1,000 years ago – following migration from the Near East. There is also evidence among non-Ashkenazi Jews of some of the same shared mtDNA ancestry (consistent with previous studies showing shared Y-chromosomes among worldwide Jewish populations, i.e., shared paternal ancestry). See “Nearly Half of Ashkenazi Jews Descended From Four ‘Founding Mothers’,” ScienceDaily.com, Jan 17, 2006, online at http://www.scienceda...60117083446.htm ; and Almut Nebel, et al., “The Y-Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 69/5 (Nov 2001), 1095-1112.

One Harvard researcher (David Reich) was astonished in 2011 that Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews were actually related to one another via DNA – “Population genetics reveals shared ancestries: DNA links modern Europeans, Middle Easterners to Sub-Saharan Africans,” ScienceDaily, May 24, 2011 (Harvard Medical School). Retrieved June 4, 2011, from http://www.scienceda...10524153536.htm .* See “Analysis of Ashkenazi Jewish Genomes Reveals Diversity, History,” ScienceDaily, Aug 27, 2010 (Emory University), retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://www.scienceda...00826141331.htm .**

---------------------------------

* Priya Moorjani, Nick Patterson, Joel N. Hirschhorn, Alon Keinan, Li Hao, Gil Atzmon, Edward Burns, Harry Ostrer, Alkes L. Price, and David Reich, “The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews.” PLoS Genetics, 7/4 (21 Apr 2011), 1371-1373, online at http://genetics.med....orjani_PLOS.pdf ; Gil Atzmon, et al., “Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 10 (June 2010), 1016; “Common genetic threads link thousands of years of Jewish ancestry,” ScienceDaily, June 4, 2011. Retrieved June 4, 2011, from http://www.scienceda...00603123707.htm .

** S.M. Bray, J.G. Mulle, A.F. Dodd, A.E. Pulver, S. Wooding and S.T. Warren, “Signatures of founder effects, admixture and selection in the Ashkenazi Jewish population,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107/37 (14 Sept 2010),16222-16227, online at http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2941333/ .

------------------------------------------

Then one might want to examine the results of comparison of Jewish DNA with modern and ancient Middle Eastern DNA:

To start, see the National Geographic video “Quest for the Phoenicians” (National Geographic, 2004), broadcast on TV in May 2005, which covered the DNA project of geneticist Dr. Spencer Wells at far flung excavations from Spain to Lebanon. He and the excavators sought to obtain DNA samples from excavated Phoenician skeletal remains (especially teeth) as well as from modern inhabitants of the same areas. Some preliminary results: Only 20% of modern Carthaginians (Carthage, North Africa) show Phoenician descent, while nearly all modern Lebanese are descended from Phoenicians – who are in turn genetically indistinguishable from Canaanites. Moreover, there is no evidence of the DNA of the famed Sea Peoples (presumably Hellenistic), who were supposed to be the impetus for Phoenician seafaring. Then compare that with:

Michael F. Hammer, et al., “Jewish and Middle Eastern Non-Jewish Populations Share a Common Pool of Y-Chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 9, 2000. Features MDS plot of populations based on Y-chromosome haplotype data (fig. 2), showing varied Jewish populations (Ashkenazi, Roman, Kurdish, North African, Iraqi, Iranian, and Yemenite) to be virtually indistinguishable from non-Jewish Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Druze, and Saudi Arabians. Ethiopian Jews and the Lemba (Bantu/Venda speakers of South Africa) were outside this tight grouping, for whatever reason (perhaps a more discrete sampling needs to be taken -- from the Buba subclan of the Lemba, for example).

See also Doron Behar, et al., “Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 73/4 (Oct 2003), 768-779. One major conclusion: Asheknazi non-Levite Jews in general do not have a major Khazar or European origin in their Y-chromosomes. Among Ashkenazi Levites, however, there is a high frequency (52%) of a distinctive, non-Near Eastern haplogroup, perhaps indicating a European non-Jew became a common ancestor sometime in the past 2,000 years, perhaps a Khazarian or other Central Asian convert of the 8th-9th centuries. Unlike Cohanim, the ancestry of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Levites is different.

“Common genetic threads link thousands of years of Jewish ancestry,” ScienceDaily, June 4, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2011, from http://www.scienceda...00603123707.htm .

Maggie Fox, “Gene Trawl Shows Druze are Living ‘Gene Sanctuary’,” Reuters, May 7 2008, online at http://www.newsdaily...22-genes-druze/ . Summary of article by Karl Skorecki, et al., in Public Library of Science ONE (PloS ONE). Very diverse genetically (verifying origin among ethnically diverse group), and high frequency of haplogroup X. Skorecki and his team have also found that 40% of European Jews descended from just 4 founding mothers in Europe a millennium ago, and that modern-day kohanim are descended from just one male ancestor, just as claimed biblically for Aaron.

Eric Hakiman, “Jewish Genes,” at http://www.mycweb.co...wish_genes.html for the results of genetic isolation of the Levites and Cohens (citing Nature, 385/6611 [Jan 2, 1997], 32-33).

Edited May 23, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Look up "principal" in the dictionary. It does not mean what you think it does.

Reread my comments. They don't mean what you think they mean.

[Log]

Do you have a link to where that comes from? I would like to see it in context.

Please see Kevin Christensen's post #50.

At a minimum, I would expect that heading ... would be reliable as reflecting what the church believed about the Indians during that period.

Let me get this straight: your concern is not with the actual claims that arise from the Book of Mormon text, but with claims that are made for it? This is, to say the least, an extremely strange position for one who seeks truth. Would you care to explain why it matters, with respect to the "DNA issue," what anyone in the Church believes, or believed, concerning the Indians, during any period from the inception of the Church to the heat death of the universe?

Why did not the inspiration at the highest echelons of Mormonism recognize and correct the factually wrong header to one of the most important books without the error first being made obvious from secular sources?

Why does it matter? Once again, I must ask: why is your primary concern not with the claims that actually arise from the text of the Book of Mormon, but with claims that are made for it?

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[cdowis]

CFR.

To request a source for one's opinion is rather silly, don't you think? But here goes: It is my opinion, so I have to quote myself as the reference.

[mathilde]

"Long before DNA, I noticed things like this:

Quote

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.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA"

I checked the reference above of 1 Nephi 1: 8, 11 and read verses 9 and 10: Lehi is promised that those who the Lord brings out of the land of Jerusalem -- specifically, Jerusalem -- would "possess this land unto themselves". Reading verse 11 in that context, after verses 9 and 10, to me this reads as a warning, a prophecy, about the future if Lehi's people do not remain faithful.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a ^apromise, that ^binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall ^cprosper 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 ^dkeep 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 ^einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in^aunbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true ^bMessiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is ^cjust shall rest upon them.

[mapman]

I think that Southerton's problems with DNA and the Book of Mormon are just non-issues. He seems to expect that Mormons are supposed to dogmatically hold onto everything that was ever taught by Church leaders. Good Mormon doctrine isn't fundamentalist, we expect to have more revelation and learn more through science that will change our paradigms. No prophet or even the scriptures (not that the Book of Mormon says that the Lehites were the only people there anyways) have ever claimed to be inerrant or free from influence of humans. Many members of the Church have changed their understanding because they learned more. What's wrong with that?

Also, the way genetics work is that you have not inherited any genes from the vast majority of your ancestors. Studies have also shown that after several generations, people quickly become the ancestor of huge amounts of people or they don't have any living descendants. Therefore it is quite reasonable to believe that Lehi is the ancestor of all American Indians even if only a few or none of them have inherited any of his genes.

Edited May 23, 2012 by mapman

[Gohan]

Much appreciate it if you could come up with some primary data on the subject.

Don't know if this is what you meant by primary data, but here's a link to the book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Mormon-Dna-Research/dp/B003GLA4ZG/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1337785730&sr=1-1-catcorr

Some of the various articles might be posted for free on the Maxwell Institute website, but I'm not sure, like I said, I haven't done more than thumb through the thing, and that was two years ago.

[cdowis]

It might help to first review the evidence on worldwide Jewish DNA testing:

Uhhhhh.... I am sure you are aware that Lehi was not a Jew, except in the cultural, generic sense.

He was descended from Joseph and an Egyptian princess. Even worse, from a DNA standpoint, Joseph and Judah were from different mothers. Because of these significant differences, you will need to demonstrate that his tribe will have significant DNA sililarities to the other Jewish tribes. Finally, His tribe was taken to Babylonia and "lost" so finding modern discendants will be tricky.

While MODERN Jews may somehow related to Mulek, I think that the tribe of Joseph is uniquely different from the other tribes, and such DNA research unlikely to have anything to do with Lehi. And, of course, there are the Jaredites.

Edited May 23, 2012 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

"Long before DNA, I noticed things like this:

Quote

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.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA"

I checked the reference above of 1 Nephi 1: 8, 11 and read verses 9 and 10: Lehi is promised that those who the Lord brings out of the land of Jerusalem -- specifically, Jerusalem -- would "possess this land unto themselves". Reading verse 11 in that context, after verses 9 and 10, to me this reads as a warning, a prophecy, about the future if Lehi's people do not remain faithful.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a ^apromise, that ^binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall ^cprosper 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 ^dkeep 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 ^einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true ^bMessiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is ^cjust shall rest upon them.

So, are you suggesting that "the land of their inheritance" is the entire Western Hemisphere? Or are you interpreting these as references to some smaller, more discrete area?

Compare, for example, the repeated references in I Nephi 2:4,11, etc., to Lehi's wealthy estate in Judah as "the land of his inheritance"; or the reference to the Land of Nephi in Mosiah 9:1 as "the land of our fathers' first inheritance" (note the same type of discrete meaning in Ether 7:16).

Reading the actual text of the Book of Mormon, I find overwhelming evidence for a limited region, and none for a hemisphere-wide context.

[Log]

Reading the actual text of the Book of Mormon, I find overwhelming evidence for a limited region, and none for a hemisphere-wide context.

While I read it that way too, is there anything in the text which precludes the hemispheric context?

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[cdowis]

So, are you suggesting that "the land of their inheritance" is the entire Western Hemisphere? Or are you interpreting these as references to some smaller, more discrete area?

Compare, for example, the repeated references in I Nephi 2:4,11, etc., to Lehi's wealthy estate in Judah as "the land of his inheritance"; or the reference to the Land of Nephi in Mosiah 9:1 as "the land of our fathers' first inheritance" (note the same type of discrete meaning in Ether 7:16).

Reading the actual text of the Book of Mormon, I find overwhelming evidence for a limited region, and none for a hemisphere-wide context.

This is a common error. "If they are not mentioned in the text, they did not exist."

The *history* related in the text of the BOM refers to a small area, but there were likely Nephites and Lamanites throughout the hemisphere. The BOM refers to the land northward as being very significant, but their records are not available to us. And, obviously, the lands south of the Lamanites are not even touched upon by the Nephites.

The story in the BOM is limited to mesoamerica, but the BOM peoples were living in a much larger expanse, including North and South America.

Edited May 23, 2012 by cdowis

[mathilde]

I do not know whether "the land of their inheritance" is the entire Western Hemisphere. However, considering the numbers given in the Book of Mormon, of battles with more wounded and dead than the Civil War, it seems difficult to imagine these people as a limited, easily overlooked population in a small area.

[DBMormon]

The population numbers of wars is an issue which seems only addressed if one wants to assume that a few nephites and lamanites are part of a larger population where the se two groups feel comfortable labeling the outsiders as part of their numbers.

The biggest issue for me is we have to accept that while perhaps their intentions were sincere LDS leaders have said a lot of wrong things when it comes to what they believed about the BOM. Hill Cumorah, Hemispheric population, mode of translation, ect....

Once we can handle that paradigm then it becomes much easier to have room for faith

[Wiki Wonka]

Do you have a link to where that comes from? I would like to see it in context.

Dr. Southerton posted it on RFM in 2005. Here is more of the context:

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later. But does such a scenario fit with what the Book of Mormon plainly states or what the prophets have taught for 175 years? Short answer. No! Long answer. Nooo!

Simon Southerton, posted on RFM, Feb. 15, 2005

Southerton’s assertions all require that we accept a hemispheric geography with Lehi as the only ancestor.

[M]ost Native American Latter-day Saints throughout the Americas regard the Israelite Lehi to be a blood relative.

Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe (2004), p. 37.

They also set up the straw man that I am arguing that according to the Book of Mormon all American Indians are descended from Hebrews. I have never claimed this. The vanishing geography theory is utter desperation.

Simon Southerton, posted on RFM, July 5, 2008.

In 2008, Dr. Southerton reasserts the statement he made back in 2005 just to make sure it was clearly understood:

In case anyone from FAIR is unclear I will repeat what I wrote four years ago…“IF A SMALL GROUP OF ISRAELITES ENTERED SUCH A MASSIVE NATIVE POPULATION (SEVERAL MILLIONS) IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HARD TO DETECT THEIR GENES.” Now that FAIR has finally conceded that American Indian DNA is essentially all derived from Asia, I also agree with them that the debate should be about the theology.

Simon Southerton, "Finally, I agree with LDS scientists-apologists," posted on RFM, Sept. 6, 2008. (emphasis in original)

So, the debate is about how the Book of Mormon is read. Since apologists at FAIR have generally taken the position of a limited BoM geography based upon data that has been around long before the DNA issue appeared, we tend to not pay much attention to any new statement he makes. All he can do is continue to assert that apologists are at odds with statements made by General Authorities. This is not true. If Lehi is among the ancestors of Native Americans, then all Native Americans can claim to be a descendant of Lehi. This is FAIR’s position, and it is not at odds with the statements made by General Authorities that Native Americans are Lehi’s children.

John Sorenson predicted this back in 1984, 20 years before Southerton published his book:

One problem some Latter-day Saint writers and lecturers have had is confusing the actual text of the Book of Mormon with the traditional interpretation of it. For example, a commonly heard statement is that the Book of Mormon is “the history of the American Indians.” This statement contains a number of unexamined assumptions—that the scripture is a history in the common sense—a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that “the” American Indians are a unitary population; and that the approximately one hundred pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scripture could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere. When unexamined assumptions like these are made, critics respond in kind, criticizing not the ancient text itself, but the assumptions we have made about it.

John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture," Ensign, September, 1984 (The presentation of the limited geography theory in the official Church magazine) (emphasis added)

WW

Edited May 23, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Robert F. Smith]

Uhhhhh.... I am sure you are aware that Lehi was not a Jew, except in the cultural, generic sense.

He was descended from Joseph and an Egyptian princess. Even worse, from a DNA standpoint, Joseph and Judah were from different mothers. Because of these significant differences, you will need to demonstrate that his tribe will have significant DNA sililarities to the other Jewish tribes. Finally, His tribe was taken to Babylonia and "lost" so finding modern discendants will be tricky.

Thus, while MODERN Jews may somehow related to Mulek, any DNA research on MODERN Jews are unlikely to have anything to do with Lehi, the Jaredites, etc.

Uhhhh . . . is right. You really need to read that post carefully. It deals not only with modern genetic characteristics, but also with the skeletal remains of ancient Lebanon and Canaan. The upshot of it all is that, there is no essential difference between ancient and modern Canaanites, be they Phoenicians or Israelites. We speak of Jews (which includes Kohens and Levites as members of the tribe of Levi) for convenience, since we have lost track of the members of the other tribes.

As you seem to understand, Mulek, and presumably some other members of his party were from the tribe of Judah (Jews) -- perhaps with admixture of others, such as Phoenicians (who might have made their ship available) -- formed the population of Zarahemla, before the arrival of the Nephites from the Land Southward. Once that merger takes place, we are no longer talking about distinct groups, and assimilation took place over the coming centuries. Then there are the Lamanites. Since an even broader merger takes place following Jesus' visit, we may have to accept much more assimilation into our scientific extrapolation. And, if there is assimilation with various unrelated groups in Mesoamerica (as many scholars suggest), then this complicates matters still more, requiring that we obtain skeletal remains from a number of areas and strata.

The Jaredites (probably from north Mesopotamia) are a completely separate issue, but Olmec skeletal remains ought to be given a close inspection for genetic value.

Yes, Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh (which was not an Egyptian tribe, despite Joseph's marriage to an Egyptian), but we do not know the ancestry of Zoram and Ishmael, and centuries of endogamous marriage within clans and tribes had already submerged any Egyptian genes in the larger Israelite gene pool (even though modern genetic testing can now find even small genetic contributions from another group centuries earlier).

Genetic testing of skeletal remains from the distinct tribal areas of Israel make the search for modern DNA largely irrelevant, and I expect that to be a major source of information on the nature of the broader amphictyony of ancient Israel.

[Benjamin McGuire]

However, considering the numbers given in the Book of Mormon, of battles with more wounded and dead than the Civil War, it seems difficult to imagine these people as a limited, easily overlooked population in a small area.

On the other hand, in 1994, in a country the size of the state of Maryland (which is a relatively small area, right?) we had the Rwandan Genocide ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide ):

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people in the small East African nation of Rwanda. Over the course of approximately 100 days (from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira on April 6) through mid-July, over 500,000 people were killed, according to a Human Rights Watch estimate.

So while it may be difficult to imagine, it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Ben M.

[Kevin Christensen]

"Long before DNA, I noticed things like this:

Quote

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.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA"

I checked the reference above of 1 Nephi 1: 8, 11 and read verses 9 and 10: Lehi is promised that those who the Lord brings out of the land of Jerusalem -- specifically, Jerusalem -- would "possess this land unto themselves". Reading verse 11 in that context, after verses 9 and 10, to me this reads as a warning, a prophecy, about the future if Lehi's people do not remain faithful.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a ^apromise, that ^binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall ^cprosper 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 ^dkeep 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 ^einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true ^bMessiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is ^cjust shall rest upon them.

Notice that "none to molest" does not mean no one at all.

Add to Sorenson's recent work the following observations:

Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me [Lehi], and to my children forever, and

also all those

who should be led out of other countries. (2 Nephi 1:5)

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:

As many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord. (2 Nephi 30:2)

And for good measure, here's more from my 1995 essay.

What is the extent of Lehi's reference to the land in this passage? John Tvedtnes says that "In the Bible, the word land most often refers to the land occupied by the Israelites."⁶³ A recent article by Russell Ball shows that the Book of Mormon usage of the terms the land, and even the whole earth, is often very localized.⁶⁴

Who and where are the other nations? In An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Sorenson wrote that "Most Latter-day Saint readers have supposed that the "other nations' were the European "Gentiles' (1 Nephi 13:1-3) who overran the land after Columbus's discovery, but does it make sense that the fate prophesied by Lehi would be delayed until 1,100 years after Cumorah?"⁶⁵

Lehi's promise that his children would possess the land unmolested was conditional on their keeping the commandments (2 Nephi 1:9). The next verses say that "when . . . they shall dwindle in unbelief" (not "long afterwards," but "when"), the Lord "will bring other nations . . . and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another, there shall be bloodsheds" (2 Nephi 1:10-12).

Second Nephi 5:2-5 reports that soon after the death of Lehi—the passing of a generation—Nephi's brothers plotted against his own life. Nephi and those he called "his people" fled the land. Despite the report that those who initially left "were those who believed" in God (2 Nephi 5:6), such passages as 2 Nephi 32:7 and 2 Nephi 33:1-3 suggest strongly that Nephi's people had problems of their own. For example, Jacob reports on the necessity for "diligent" labor among them on the part of the prophets (Jacob 1:7) even before Jacob 2:15 describes the beginning of extreme tendencies. Prior to the departure of Nephi's people, the Lamanites had already acted in a role as "a scourge to [Nephi's people], to stir them up in remembrance of me" (2 Nephi 5:25). Although neither Nephi nor Jacob provides details, Jacob 1:10 describes Nephi as having "wielded the sword of Laban" in defense of his people. Thus we have no record of the conditions for blessing being fully kept, and significant information suggesting that the covenant curse was in effect almost from the time of the death of Lehi. That is, immediately after the death of Lehi (the passing of that generation), we see the loss of lands and scattering (2 Nephi 5:5), and smiting and bloodsheds (2 Nephi 5:25, 34, Jacob 1:10). What about the "other nations"?

I offerered some suggestions in addition to Sorenson's earlier JBMS 1 essay.

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=2&id=193

Roper's later essay (linked in my previous post) is the most comprehensive one on the topic of Nephi's Neighbors and should be accounted for by anyone who wants to be informed.

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=505

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 23, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Log]

I offerered some suggestions in addiction to Sorenson's earlier JBMS 1 essay.

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=2&id=193

Kevin, I think I speak for someone when I say you need to quit smoking that stuff.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[mathilde]

Those people were slaughtered. It was not a war.

[Robert F. Smith]

While I read it that way too, is there anything in the text which precludes the hemispheric context?

The basic obstacle to seeing a hemispheric context is the distances covered within the text. They describe the number of days of travel, which give us a general idea of the possible distances. These can then be extrapolated to the generic map (or template) which scholars create to understand the relationships among the various places mentioned in the text. That leaves us with a region no larger than ancient Palestine, even though there were people who left that general area from time to time and were never heard from again.

Only after having done that, do we attempt to compare actual topographic maps of real places in the Western Hemisphere. Outside the text, of course, there is only one place in the New World in which high, literate culture and civilization was achieved, and that was in Mesoamerica. First, the mother culture of the Olmec (which flourished during what the Book of Mormon describes as Jaredite times), and second, the various other cultures which carried on with aspects of Olmec culture long after the Olmecs were gone. John Sorenson has shown how those civilizations rise and fall in archeological synch with Book of Mormon cultures.

[Craig Paxton]

For me, at least, Southerton's conclusions have been pretty well debunked.

Ahhhh....actually every claim Simon has made is confirmed and backed up by scientific studies...what claim of his exactly has been debunked?

[Robert F. Smith]

I do not know whether "the land of their inheritance" is the entire Western Hemisphere. However, considering the numbers given in the Book of Mormon, of battles with more wounded and dead than the Civil War, it seems difficult to imagine these people as a limited, easily overlooked population in a small area.

Posted Today, 08:47 AM

The population numbers of wars is an issue which seems only addressed if one wants to assume that a few nephites and lamanites are part of a larger population where the se two groups feel comfortable labeling the outsiders as part of their numbers.

mathilde,

I see no reason to think of them as being "overlooked."

Since Mesoamerica was populated by many millions of peoples supported by massive irrigation projects from the Yucatan to Oaxaca (there were over 12 million in Mexico when the Conquistadores arrived, and that was down from previous highs in the Maya Classic), the numbers of dead described in the Book of Mormon are actually quite reasonable. I suggest a relevant university class or some reading on ancient Mesoamerica to gain perspective. Perhaps something by Michael Coe.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[morgan.deane]

On the other hand, in 1994, in a country the size of the state of Maryland (which is a relatively small area, right?) we had the Rwandan Genocide ( http://en.wikipedia....wandan_Genocide ):

So while it may be difficult to imagine, it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Ben M.

This is a good point but I would go further. The killing ability of premodern armies have often been discounted. In the Chinese War of the Eight Princes, fought around 300 AD, a city of 700,000 was reduced to a handful of refugees, armies that measured close to one million people ceased to exist, and the destruction was so swift that one contemporary historian said that "bleached bones covered the field". The fighting was centered in an area roughly the size of Mesoamerica. I could also point to the battle of Cannae where historians say that Hannibal killed up to 70,000 men in one day. So the numbers of dead in the BoM are not outlandish for a limited geography.

Edited May 23, 2012 by morgan.deane

[mathilde]

I've read articles by Michael Coe. To my knowledge he does not support the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. And I do understand and have read about Mesoamerica, and the Maya, but that does not necessarily line up with the story line of the battles of the Book of Mormon.