Jump to content

Not Enough Space for an Inheritance?


Recommended Posts

2 Nephi 1:8 says "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".

How small of an area is *this land* that there was a concern of there not being enough space for their inheritance
when many nations learned of its location?

Gale

Link to post
23 minutes ago, telnetd said:

2 Nephi 1:8 says "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".

How small of an area is *this land* that there was a concern of there not being enough space for their inheritance
when many nations learned of its location?

Gale

Space and size may not be the limiting factor here. Being overrun implies competing and warring factions which results in unstable inheritances, negating the consecration of the land spoken of in verses 7 and 32.

  • Like 3
Link to post
36 minutes ago, telnetd said:

2 Nephi 1:8 says "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".

How small of an area is *this land* that there was a concern of there not being enough space for their inheritance
when many nations learned of its location?

Gale

Just as a reference, within 50 years, the Native American nations were "overran" from about 90% of their lands by the expansion of the settlements and the railroads.

God's plan for the Nephites made a provision for certain events and history to unfold in a particular way until a specific time for His own purposes. Keeping away other nations was part of that plan. 

Link to post

The early Saints would have been in big trouble if there wasn't a sparsely populated desert to retreat to. My question is when things get bad where do we go next time?

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The early Saints would have been in big trouble if there wasn't a sparsely populated desert to retreat to. My question is when things get bad where do we go next time?

Sigma Draconis system. 

Link to post
22 hours ago, telnetd said:

2 Nephi 1:8 says "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".

How small of an area is *this land* that there was a concern of there not being enough space for their inheritance
when many nations learned of its location?

Gale

Ideally, I would like to have 100 acres of forest land on a mountain overlooking both an ocean and a river running into that ocean.  Any ocean or river will do.  With lots of tall trees on the sides facing way from the ocean and river.

Please consider that before taking up all of the spaces available otherwise you will not be supporting me and where I would like to live.

"An inheritance" could simply be a reference to what I or any other person would be able to inherit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
46 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Sigma Draconis system. 

Great, then a bunch of pioneer ancestor stories about how they walked all those parsecs with only half of the oxygen reserves they needed with space sharks chasing them the whole way. Sure, grandpa.

The cover of the next Pioneer Ancestor's storybook:

55b0e851371d22462c8b6b3e?width=747&forma

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 8/2/2020 at 12:06 PM, telnetd said:

2 Nephi 1:8 says "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".

How small of an area is *this land* that there was a concern of there not being enough space for their inheritance
when many nations learned of its location?

Gale

This language probably needs to be edited if one believes that people were already here when Nephi and co. landed.  Perhaps it should say, "and behold, it is wisdom that this land should be prudently divided with the people we find there, otherwise there would be no place for an inheritance."

Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The early Saints would have been in big trouble if there wasn't a sparsely populated desert to retreat to. My question is when things get bad where do we go next time?

Missouri!

Link to post
4 minutes ago, gav said:

Missouri!

Things would have to be VERY VERY bad before I would ever seriously consider moving  to Missouri.  The Pacific NW is where I would much rather be and now am.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

This language probably needs to be edited if one believes that people were already here when Nephi and co. landed.  Perhaps it should say, "and behold, it is wisdom that this land should be prudently divided with the people we find there, otherwise there would be no place for an inheritance."

No. It works. It is talking about other nations in the old world sending out colonies and conquerors.

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

This language probably needs to be edited if one believes that people were already here when Nephi and co. landed.  Perhaps it should say, "and behold, it is wisdom that this land should be prudently divided with the people we find there, otherwise there would be no place for an inheritance."

Not really.  Before this, every time they talk about the new land, they only talk about how it is for them and their descendants.  But now that they've finally reached this new land, Lehi starts talking about how others might come to the land.  Its almost like Lehi is trying to explain to his children how this supposedly clear place that he and his kids were going to inherit is already overrun with inhabitants.

  • Like 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, webbles said:

Not really.  Before this, every time they talk about the new land, they only talk about how it is for them and their descendants.  But now that they've finally reached this new land, Lehi starts talking about how others might come to the land.  Its almost like Lehi is trying to explain to his children how this supposedly clear place that he and his kids were going to inherit is already overrun with inhabitants.

I guess if one needs to preserve a certain theory or point, one can change ordinary and customary meaning into whatever one wants.  The scripture says: 2 Nephi 1:8 says "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".  Clearly the above is talking about other nations not knowing about the Americas.  The idea was that Lehi and co. came to the Americas and were the only people here.  Ether alludes to the same thing with the Jaredites when they came.  It is clear as clear can be.  Supposedly, Lehi and co. were the only ones in the Americas when they arrived.

Link to post
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No. It works. It is talking about other nations in the old world sending out colonies and conquerors.

Why would it be said that the land should be kept from other nations when it was already filled with numerous natives?  Why would it be necessary to keep the land hidden if it was already populated by a numerous people?

Link to post
23 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I guess if one needs to preserve a certain theory or point, one can change ordinary and customary meaning into whatever one wants.  The scripture says: 2 Nephi 1:8 says "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".  Clearly the above is talking about other nations not knowing about the Americas.  The idea was that Lehi and co. came to the Americas and were the only people here.  Ether alludes to the same thing with the Jaredites when they came.  It is clear as clear can be.  Supposedly, Lehi and co. were the only ones in the Americas when they arrived.

We know that the Mulekites are either already in the Americas or shortly will be.  We also know the Jaredites have already been here.  Lehi doesn't talk about either of them nor are any of them mentioned previously (Nephi's vision earlier is a good example of where they should probably be mentioned but they aren't).

So, we already know that this land hasn't been "kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations".  At least two other nations know of it.

In addition, Lehi says, in 2 Nephi 1:5: "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."  And in verse 7: "Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring."  So, the Lord can bring other people from other countries to this land and it will be consecrated/covenanted to them.

So, you have Lehi and co talking about how the land will be all theirs (see again Nephi's earlier vision and other prophecies of Lehi/Nephi in 1 Nephi).  But when they finally arrive in the Americas, one of the first thing that Lehi talks about is how other people can come to the land (see vs 5 and 7).  Then in verse 8, Lehi says that it will kept from the knowledge of other nations.  So, it isn't as "clear as clear can be".

Lehi is saying that other people can come to the Americas, just like his family (led and brought by the Lord).  And he is also saying that the Americas will be kept from the knowledge of other nations.  And considering that he says the former before the later, it feels like he is actually explaining to his family why there are "others" on the land.  The "others" were "those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" (see verse 5) and who had "this land consecrated unto [them]" (see verse 7).  But this land will still be "kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" (see verse 8) so everyone should get along.

Link to post
27 minutes ago, webbles said:

We know that the Mulekites are either already in the Americas or shortly will be.  We also know the Jaredites have already been here.  Lehi doesn't talk about either of them nor are any of them mentioned previously (Nephi's vision earlier is a good example of where they should probably be mentioned but they aren't).

So, we already know that this land hasn't been "kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations".  At least two other nations know of it.

In addition, Lehi says, in 2 Nephi 1:5: "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."  And in verse 7: "Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring."  So, the Lord can bring other people from other countries to this land and it will be consecrated/covenanted to them.

So, you have Lehi and co talking about how the land will be all theirs (see again Nephi's earlier vision and other prophecies of Lehi/Nephi in 1 Nephi).  But when they finally arrive in the Americas, one of the first thing that Lehi talks about is how other people can come to the land (see vs 5 and 7).  Then in verse 8, Lehi says that it will kept from the knowledge of other nations.  So, it isn't as "clear as clear can be".

Lehi is saying that other people can come to the Americas, just like his family (led and brought by the Lord).  And he is also saying that the Americas will be kept from the knowledge of other nations.  And considering that he says the former before the later, it feels like he is actually explaining to his family why there are "others" on the land.  The "others" were "those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" (see verse 5) and who had "this land consecrated unto [them]" (see verse 7).  But this land will still be "kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" (see verse 8) so everyone should get along.

I think you are imposing your own personal reading on the text.  We need to give words their ordinary and plain meaning as existed in 1830 when the text was composed in order to decipher what was meant, even if it is contrary to LGT or whatever other theory is out there.  Theories come and go regarding the BofM and the dearth of evidence of the Lehites in the new world complicates things.  However, the text and the ordinary meanings should be preserved, whatever theory is currently espoused.  In the end, we must have faith that the BofM will be vindicated.

 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Why would it be said that the land should be kept from other nations when it was already filled with numerous natives?  Why would it be necessary to keep the land hidden if it was already populated by a numerous people?

To keep it from being too crowded.

Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I think you are imposing your own personal reading on the text.  We need to give words their ordinary and plain meaning as existed in 1830 when the text was composed in order to decipher what was meant, even if it is contrary to LGT or whatever other theory is out there.  Theories come and go regarding the BofM and the dearth of evidence of the Lehites in the new world complicates things.  However, the text and the ordinary meanings should be preserved, whatever theory is currently espoused.  In the end, we must have faith that the BofM will be vindicated.

 

Isn't everyone "imposing [our] own personal reading on the text"?  :)

Ok, you tell me what the "ordinary and plain meaning as existed in 1830" for Lehi's words to his sons?  Lehi can not be "plainly" saying that no one will come to the Americas other than his family since the text itself contradicts that.  The text "plainly" states that others can come (verse 5 and 7) before he states that it is hidden (verse 8).  And the rest of text also "plainly" states that others are already on the land or about to land (Mulekites and Jaredites). 

  • Like 3
Link to post
55 minutes ago, webbles said:

Isn't everyone "imposing [our] own personal reading on the text"?  :)

Ok, you tell me what the "ordinary and plain meaning as existed in 1830" for Lehi's words to his sons?  Lehi can not be "plainly" saying that no one will come to the Americas other than his family since the text itself contradicts that.  The text "plainly" states that others can come (verse 5 and 7) before he states that it is hidden (verse 8).  And the rest of text also "plainly" states that others are already on the land or about to land (Mulekites and Jaredites). 

God supposedly hid the Americas from other nations except those He brought over.  This didn't include peoples crossing the bering strait tens of thousands of years ago and filling the Americas.  This was the understanding back in the 1830's before "principal" changed to "among."  It's what is to be understood from the words when stripped of outside theories used to justify inconsistencies in the book with what science has found.

I just think it is a lost cause to dwell on this or that theory regarding the book of mormon as they contradict each other and create unnecessary strife, like with the heartlanders v. LGT.  It's probably why the church isn't dumping a bunch of money into more archaeological digs and why Pres. Nelson wants to focus more on the spirituality of the book of mormon. 

Link to post
On 8/4/2020 at 9:50 AM, Robert J Anderson said:

God supposedly hid the Americas from other nations except those He brought over.  This didn't include peoples crossing the bering strait tens of thousands of years ago and filling the Americas.  This was the understanding back in the 1830's before "principal" changed to "among."  It's what is to be understood from the words when stripped of outside theories used to justify inconsistencies in the book with what science has found.

I just think it is a lost cause to dwell on this or that theory regarding the book of mormon as they contradict each other and create unnecessary strife, like with the heartlanders v. LGT.  It's probably why the church isn't dumping a bunch of money into more archaeological digs and why Pres. Nelson wants to focus more on the spirituality of the book of mormon. 

Why are you assuming that the people who crossed the bering strait weren't brought over by God?  The Mulekites shows us that people can be brought by God without having any prophets or spiritual leaders among them.

And why are you bringing up a word ("principal") that isn't part of the original 1830 text?  And, by the way, I still accept that the "Lamanites" are the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians.  I'd go even so far as saying that the "Lamanites" are the entire ancestors of the American Indians.  And that is because the term "Lamanites", by the end of the Book of Mormon, describes everyone that isn't a member of the church (see 4 Nephi and beyond).  So, anyone who is living on the Americas by the end of the Book of Mormon is, according to the Book of Mormon, a Lamanite.

  • Like 3
Link to post
On 8/4/2020 at 10:50 AM, Robert J Anderson said:

God supposedly hid the Americas from other nations except those He brought over.  This didn't include peoples crossing the bering strait tens of thousands of years ago and filling the Americas.  This was the understanding back in the 1830's before "principal" changed to "among."  It's what is to be understood from the words when stripped of outside theories used to justify inconsistencies in the book with what science has found.

I just think it is a lost cause to dwell on this or that theory regarding the book of mormon as they contradict each other and create unnecessary strife, like with the heartlanders v. LGT.  It's probably why the church isn't dumping a bunch of money into more archaeological digs and why Pres. Nelson wants to focus more on the spirituality of the book of mormon. 

Why would it not include them?

I agree that the theories about the Book of Mormon are not of great importance. The only times I have spoken forcefully about them is when I thought it was a kind of fraud.

Link to post
40 minutes ago, webbles said:

Why are you assuming that the people who crossed the bering strait weren't brought over by God?  The Mulekites shows us that people can be brought by God without having any prophets or spiritual leaders among them.

And why are you bringing up a word ("principal") that isn't part of the original 1830 text?  And, by the way, I still accept that the "Lamanites" are the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians.  I'd go even so far as saying that the "Lamanites" are the entire ancestors of the American Indians.  And that is because the term "Lamanites", by the end of the Book of Mormon, describes everyone that isn't a member of the church (see 4 Nephi and beyond).  So, anyone who is living on the Americas by the end of the Book of Mormon is, according to the Book of Mormon, a Lamanite.

There were other groups. At one point the Lamanites and Nephites melded into one and there are still references to "enemies" and I doubt that that Nephite-Lamanite nation controlled all of the Americas.

  • Like 4
Link to post

To be realistic , let's do a little math. Given a population growth of 1.5% over 1000 years , both the Jaredites and the Lehites each could have developed populations of 100 million . Also , given human desire to explore or leave crowded places , that means that where ever they started out, they would have expanded possibly all over North and South America. This doesn't count any "others" who traveled by boat or walked to the continents. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...