Once in a while, somebody writes to FAIR, taking issue with something one of us writes. While the correspondent may be right, that person bears the burden of showing that it is so. If the evidence that person presents is persuasive, we alter our opinions accordingly. Otherwise, it will remain on our “not proven” list.
Some time ago, FAIR received an email from a gentleman who took issue with my article, “Adding up the Book of Mormon Peoples.” In sum, he stated that a 2.6% average growth rate would get the Book of Mormon numbers–without the need for immigration, which he claimed was contrary to what the Lord commanded. While this brother might be right about the growth rate (He is right about the mathematics!), to assume that would (to me) make the Book of Mormon events too miraculous where it doesn’t need to be.
In my article, I cited the growth rates of the fifty United States during the 1980s. Texas’ growth rate of 1.8% was an outlier from the average growth rate of 0.9%–and would be even more of one when compared to an average growth rate of only 0.3%, which is the world-wide average until about 250 years ago. While God intervening would certainly be possible, I don’t think this type of miracle is in God’s style–not when the Nephites themselves have the capacity to get the numbers with a lower, more easily attainable domestic growth rate, coupled with substantial, yet modest amounts of immigration. If the Nephites could pull it off themselves, it is unnecessary for God to intervene (though, of course, He could have). Why have God do something we could do for ourselves? The rule of Occam’s Razor would (to me) make this brother’s numbers less likely than the lower numbers that I cited–plus immigration.
Further, I am unconvinced of this brother’s use of Alma 3:8-9, 15 as evidence that immigration has nothing to do with the Nephite growth. While the Lord did forbid intermarriage between Nephites and Lamanites (at least until the coming of the Saviour described in III Nephi), I know of no texts where He had forbidden intermarriage with other groups (besides the Lamanites) that the Lord prompted to migrate to America.
One reason that the Book of Mormon rings true to me is the realism and relevance of Scriptural miracles, that tend to accomplish readily apparent purposes. One such miracle was Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego staying alive through the furnace [Daniel 3]. Yes, God did help Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon; at the time, the Nephite language was dead, and there were no living mortals who could read the language. Yet, one should also note that Joseph Smith actually did the translating work; it did not show up full-blown–not even (assuming anti-Mormons are correct about the mode of translation) when he allegedly looked into the hat.
Another hallmark of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity is that it portrays people as they really are (as does the Bible), instead of portraying heroes without flaw. For example, as righteous as Lehi and Sariah were, their childrearing skills (described in the first two Books of Nephi) seemed to me to have left something to be desired. Moreover, Captain Moroni is a little too sarcastic and insubordinate to Nephite leader in Alma 60–though I must admit that his “state of thoughtless stupor” insult in verse seven makes for delicious reading. 😉
To sum up, there is a reason for FAIR’s conservatism: we who accept the Book of Mormon as bona fide Scripture bear the burden of proof, and far-out explainations tend to detract from the Book of Mormon’s credibility–especially when anti-Mormon answers seem more plausible.
UPDATE: Theodore Brandley sent me an interesting email:
“Steven,
“There are at least 2 religious, agrarian groups in North America that have experienced 4% growth rate for over a century.
“In 1900 there were approximately 3,700 Amish in North America. By 1990 the estimated figure had increased to 127,800. (Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online)
http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/A4574ME.html
“Since then the Amish population has increased to an estimated 227,000. (Associated Press Wednesday, August 20, 2008)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407461,00.html
“The Hutterites, with whom I am quite familiar with in Western Canada, Montana and North Dakota, have also had an annual growth rate of about 4% over a period of 125 years. Almost all of them are descended from the original 400 who came to America.
“Nearly extinct by the 18th and 19th century, the Hutterites found a new home in North America. Over 125 years their population grew from 400 to around 50,000.”
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1169-1018%281996%292%3A8%3C252%3ACICIMG%3E2
.0.CO%3B2-V&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
Quoted in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite
“I think that this demonstrates that a Christian group, living an agrarian lifestyle, in the fertile lands of North America, can and do attain growth rates sufficient to meet the requirements of the Book of Mormon without
immigration from others.
“Theodore”
Of course, Theodore did well by finding these cites. Theodore didn’t attack me for being too stupid to bow to his superiority, nor did he abandon his position when he didn’t persuade me. Instead, he went about strengthening his case.
By demonstrating that the less-likely no-immigrant large population growth is not as rare as I and others thought, he also makes less rare the more likely population growth with immigrants.
While anti-Mormons still can raise some hard questions, Theodore did help neutralise the “impossible population growth” stick they used to beat us.
One of us is very likely wrong about the immigration issue, but we are united about the REAL issue: The Book of Mormon, including its claims about population numbers, is true.
Well, I don’t have a problem with a immigration theory for the population growth of Nephites.
However, I don’t find 1980 American population growth rates to be very informative about growth rates in 400 BC to 400 AD.
Growth rates have varied widely throughout human history, and I don’t think an average 2.6% growth rate is out of bounds, let alone requiring any special miracle.
A small population when presented with a sparsely settled area with plentiful food and other resources often experiences an explosive population growth- early New England settlements experienced this.
So I think we should be wary of saying that a zero immigrant model is unreasonable.
Hi Ciero!
**I don’t find 1980 American population growth rates to be very informative about growth rates in 400 BC to 400 AD.**
It’s not supposed to be. I merely used those numbers to illustrate the difference between the mean and outliers in a population. In the 1980s, USA averaged 0.9% growth, and Texas’ 1.8% growth rate was an outlier.
**Growth rates have varied widely throughout human history, and I don’t think an average 2.6% growth rate is out of bounds, let alone requiring any special miracle.**
Actually, according to Herman Kahn, William Brown, and Leon Martel, until about 250 years ago, the world’s average was quite stable at less than 0.5%. (_The Next 200 Years: A Scenario for America and the World_ (New York: Morrow, 1976), pp. 27-29).
However, individual locales did have wildly varying population growth/declines.
**A small population when presented with a sparsely settled area with plentiful food and other resources often experiences an explosive population growth- early New England settlements experienced this.**
True, but New England’s growth rate slowed dramatically after that intial spurt.
The problem is not in ATTAINING a 2.6% growth rate, but of MAINTAINING that growth over centuries.
**I think we should be wary of saying that a zero immigrant model is unreasonable.**
If one uses “unreasonable” as a proxy for “impossible,” then I would be more than wary about saying that, as well. Perhaps “improbable” is a better word.
Outliers are, by definition, improbable. If 1.8% is an outlier to 0.9%, then 2.6% would appear to be a bigger outlier to the smaller mean of 0.5%.
We are agreed on one thing, though: The numbers in the Book of Mormon are possible. The more realistic his numbers look, the more realistic my numbers look.
I am the brother who challenged the concept that other peoples were required to meet the numbers spoken of in the Book of Mormon. The higher population increases that I suggested were influenced by the text of the Book of Mormon itself. For example:
“And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land…” (Jarom 1:8).
“And there were a great number, even so many that they did not number them; for they had multiplied exceedingly and waxed great in the land.” (Mosiah 2:2)
Notice that the text specifically states that the reason there were so many of them is because they had “multiplied exceedingly.” They themselves seem to be surprised at how much they had multiplied. This is contrary to the theory that the reason there were so many of them is because they had mingled with other people. The text does not give us any reason to seek for a different explanation other than what the prophets who were there wrote.
Hi Theodore! Good to “cyber-see” you! 😉
As I mentioned in the blog (and in my email to you!), your suggested rate of growth may be accurate. While we both accept the texts you cited, our difference is in HOW exceedingly did the Nephites multiply.
While both your figure of 2.6% and mine of 1.8% would qualify as “multiplying exceedingly,” I thought it best to choose the smaller rate, which was more probable–the Book of Mormon text states that there were other immigrants [II Nephi 1:5; I Nephi 13:30], and the lower numbers work with immigrants taken into account.
In short, Occam’s Razor calls for conservatism. I will, however, gladly alter my view if there some physical evidence calling for the higher number. 😉
I’d like to add that the initial group probably numbered a couple hundred or more. Nephi’s family took only a small, insular group, but when they went back for their allies, they picked up a family and the complete related household — all the slaves, servants and extended family.
For an example, Abraham’s included hundreds of men trained specifically for war (and see Esau who continues in that tradition with a military band).
Which would explain why the ship Nephi built was like nothing the brothers had seen before.
Steven, I think you’re missing the point. The text reads:
“… so many that they did not number them; for they had multiplied exceedingly….” (Mosiah 2:2)
The main point in the above quotation is the prophet’s explanation as to why there were so many Nephites. They had “multiplied exceedingly.” (multiplied, as in “multiply and replenish the earth”). The actual growth rate is unknowable and also somewhat irrelevant. The estimations only serve to show that the growth of the Nephites indicated by the text is possible.
Our primary source of information is what the prophets said about their growth. So that we would not wonder nor misunderstand why there were so many Nephites, this “multiplied” theme is emphasizes twelve more times throughout the Book of Mormon. This is the explanation of the prophets who had sandals on the ground at the time. Why should we question their statements and supplant them with alternate theories?
I disagree that the texts you cited “states that there were other immigrants” at the time of the Nephites.
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.”
“All those” would include the Mulekites at the time of the Nephites and the Gentiles of the last 500 years. It may also include others we have no knowledge of during the 1,000 years between the Nephites and the Gentiles. There is no evidence, nor indication that it includes others during the Nephite period.
1 Ne 13:30
“…wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren.”
The “mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren” is referring to the many dissenting Nephites who mixed their seed with the Lamanites.
“…and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction. And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.” (Alma 3:7-9)
Again, there is no evidence, nor indication that this statement is referring to other immigrants.
Hi Steve!
I think it is quite probable that both the Nephites and Mulekites had over 100 people–together. In my article I cited above, I had calculated 31 in Lehi’s group and 72 in Mulek’s. However, when we consider each group, the odds tend to shrink. While it is more than possible that Mulek had more than a handful of servants (and their families) attending to him, it is more likely that Mulek had fewer rather than more servants coming with him, with the bulk fighting it out in Jerusalem in a delaying action to allow Mulek and his entourage to escape. Also, more servants tend to make it harder to get out unnoticed.
As for Lehi’s party, while it is quite probable that he had servants coming with him, it is not likely that he could afford as many servants as the Crown Prince. Moreover, Lehi’s group was also constrained by the need for mobility and stealth, which would be more easily compromised by allowing more servants to tag along.
Remember, both Lehi and Mulek had to evade not only the Babylonians, but also the locals who might panic or worse had they seen large trains of people flee the city.
But, as Dennis Miller put it, that’s just my opinion, and I could be wrong! 😉
Hi Theodore!
I’m not questioning the text, nor am I ignoring it in favour of my own opinion. As I pointed out earlier–and you concurred–both of our numbers qualify as “multiplied exceedingly. The question is, how much “multiplied exceedingly” did the Nephites do?
I chose the lower rate because it was less of an outlier than the higher; hence it is more probable. Look, Theodore, to attain a 2.6% average growth rate–without outside immigration, you need for each couple to produce an average of almost six children who live long enough to reproduce (5.8). This assumes a forty-year average lifespan; roughly the same as the USA during the 19th century.
I must admit that the USA did have such a growth rate during the 19th century (2.71%), but that was fueled in large part by massive immigration, and that growth rate has slowed considerably–to an average of 1.17% since 1970. Ancient Rome’s numbers were very close to the USA’s–for very similar reasons. And the decrease in Roman population growth during their declining years mirrored post-World War II USA and Europe.
While six children per couple is not out of the question, I know of no instance where a civilisation has maintained that average–without substantial immigration–over hundreds of years. I won’t say that it is impossible (If you can attain a high level, you can maintain it.), the constraints involved with the effort of maintaining that fertility, such as war and disease, make such a growth rate very improbable over six centuries.
A four-child average, in my view, is much more maintainable.
You said:
**I disagree that the texts you cited “states that there were other immigrants” at the time of the Nephites.**
I know you do. 😉
You also said:
**“All those” would include the Mulekites at the time of the Nephites and the Gentiles of the last 500 years.**
Yes it does, but the text doesn’t limit the “all those” to the Mulekites.
**It may also include others we have no knowledge of during the 1,000 years between the Nephites and the Gentiles. There is no evidence, nor indication that it includes others during the Nephite period.**
Nor is there evidence that it *doesn’t* include others.
And, since we have physical evidence of non-Semitic peoples living in the area during that time, it would be logical to include them, since the text doesn’t prohibit them, wouldn’t it?
**The “mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren” is referring to the many dissenting Nephites who mixed their seed with the Lamanites.**
True, but why would God include others who are NOT dissenting Nephites or Mulekites in that prohibition? That would be punishing those who had done no wrong, no?
**Again, there is no evidence, nor indication that this statement [Alma 3:7-9?] is referring to other immigrants.**
Which is why I assume that not Nephite/Lamanite/Mulekites are not included in the “do not mix” command.
If you mean that that there is nothing in the “all those” comments that indicates non-Semitic immigrants, I must also reply that there is nothing that does not.
And, since non-Semitic people were in the area, and the Gospel is universal [See II Nephi 26:33], I see no reason to include them as immigrants in my population calculations.
I do stipulate, though, that your native growth numbers may be right, which would bother me not at all.
Peace!
Steven Shalom,
You are correct that the above quoted verses do not specifically exclude other immigrants, but that does not constitute evidence for their existence. Again, there is no text of the Book of Mormon that constitutes evidence for the existence of other people during the period of the Book of Mormon. In fact there is text that specifically excludes that possibility.
2 Nephi 1:9
“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.”
This was a promise from the Lord to Lehi that they would “possess the land unto themselves.” This promise would have been valid until after the coming of Christ because no people on earth could have been blessed upon the face of the land more than the Nephites were at that time.
It is interesting that Lehi recorded the promise so that it was valid for “those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem.” We don’t know if Lehi had prophetic knowledge of the Mulekites at that time, or knowledge that they would be combined with his children to “posses the land unto themselves.”
If there were others who the Lord brought out of Jerusalem to combine with the children of Lehi surely they would have been mentioned somewhere, especially in the following:
“And now will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us, and they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem? But behold, this is not all—“ ( Helaman 8:21)
The main reason that I am challenging the theory of “others” combining with the children of Lehi and the Mulekites is because of the Lord’s promise to Lehi. The Lord’s promises are sure and I am innately suspicious of theories that try to circumvent them.
Steven, you allude to physical evidence of non-Semitic peoples living in the area during that time. Since you did not explain what that physical evidence is I have no way of commenting on it. However, as there is no evidence of “others” within the text of the Book of Mormon itself the main reason for the existence of the “others” theory must be to reconcile the Book of Mormon with current interpretation of archaeological evidence. This is shaky ground, as interpretation of archaeological evidence is highly subjective and subject to constant revision.
Et pax vobiscum, Theodorus! 😉
I must dissent from your understanding of II Nephi 1:9. Equating immigrants into Nephite lands with foreign nations possessing Nephite lands is like saying that Dade County Florida is a possession of Cuba, ruled by Raul Castro, and the American southwest is part of Mexico–which, I’m sure, would be much to the chagrin of Miami residents and most citizens of our southwestern States!
😉
Despite the desires of Mr. Castro, and MEChA, Old Glory still flies over Miami, FL, Sacramento, CA, Phoenix, AZ, Santa Fe, NM, and Austin, TX.
The evidence I refer to are non-Semitic DNA samples among pre-Columbian New World denizens, and to evidence of a trans-Bering Strait migration thousands of years ago. Since non-Semites were in the area (according to our best information), I conclude that they immigrated to become Nephites–at least by adoption–to take advantage of opportunities the Nephite nation offered.
Really, Theodore, this is the reason why most immigrants voluntarily come to a new country: to become members of that new country.
Immigrants who come to a new country trying to make it part of the old country are usually part of an invading army. I read II Nephi 1:9 as saying that, while the Nephites remain righteous, such armies will fail. THis, I think gives us something to think about, since those promises are supposed to apply to us, as well.
Steven,
Your Dade County analogy adds a little humor into the discussion but I do not think it is applicable to II Nephi 1:9 for two reasons.
1. “…those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem…shall be kept from all other nations.” That means that the “Cubans” and the “Mexicans” would be “kept from” the Jerusalemites and wouldn’t be able to immigrate to them. Just like America was “kept from” the Europeans. Verse 8 reinforces this interpretation:
“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.
If there were “Cubans and Mexicans” here when the Jerusalemites arrived they would be “other nations” (as in “First Nations?”):-).
2. “…those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem…. possess this land unto themselves. “Themselves” excludes anyone who did not come from Jerusalem.
We have no idea what peoples came here during the thousand years between the Nephites and Columbus, so “pre-Columbian” DNA samples may not be evidence of others during the Nephite period. As to the DNA being non-Semitic, how do we know what the Lehite/Mulekite DNA looked like 2600 years ago? This is a complex subject beyond my understanding, but I will comment on a concept that you may not have considered.
You mentioned evidence of ancient Bering Strait migration to America. You have probably read the article, DNA and the Book of Mormon, by Dr. David Stewart. In the section, Ethnohistory and Genetics: Affinities vs. Origins, Stewart writes:
“Could there have been a common origin outside of Mongolia for both native Americans and many modern Mongolians? The Bible tells us that the “ten tribes” were dispersed to the “lands of the North.” Do not Siberia and Mongolia qualify as “lands of the North?” It has been noted that the genetic markers found in modern Native Americans have the greatest affinity for those of modern Mongolians, southern Siberians, and Manchurians. Rather than “disproving” Israelite origins, this is remarkable in view of the fact that over the past few years modern patriarchal blessings have identified LDS members of twelve of the thirteen tribes of Israel in Mongolia. While this does not offer any kind of scientific “proof,” it should at least open our minds to consideration of the possibility of a common origin for Native Americans and many modern Mongolians outside of Central Asia, perhaps in ancient Israel. In light of this and Book of Mormon teachings about the Israelite origins of the Native Americans, one wonders if at least some elements of the genetics of these groups may not represent the genetics of ancient Israel better than many of today’s mongrelized Jewish populations.”
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html
The Ten Tribes started for the north about a century before Lehi left Jerusalem. They went far enough north to be in a land with a lot of ice (see D&C 133:26). We know that the main body of them did not go into Northern Europe because our patriarchs have not found many there other than Ephraim and Manasseh (that is another issue we can talk about sometime). Therefore the main body of the Lost Tribes must have gone east of the Urals into northern Asia—Siberia, Mongolia and Manchuria (“poorest spot in all of the vineyard?”) As with Mongolia, even among the few Saints there are in Siberia almost all of the tribes have been identified by the patriarchs.
It is reasonable that the North East Asians and the Lehites were of common ancestry. That would explain the Asian DNA and other Asian-like evidence in America without migration across the Bering Strait.
Anyway, the difference in our conclusions comes from the fact that you begin with the belief and premise that there were others here in America when Lehi arrived, and then you search for evidence in the Book of Mormon to support that premise. I begin with the Lord’s promise to Lehi that they would “possess this land unto themselves” and then search for evidence that would contradict the promise. I haven’t found any.
Hello, again, Theodore!
You said, “Your Dade County analogy adds a little humor into the discussion….”
Thank you! I’m glad you caught the humour! 😉
You said about II Nephi 1:8-9: “‘Cubans’ and the ‘Mexicans’ would be ‘kept from’ the Jerusalemites and wouldn’t be able to immigrate to them. Just like America was ‘kept from’ the Europeans.”
I disagree with your understanding. The “other nations” in I and II Nephi–at least as I read it–would be their Middle Eastern neighbours. If the Lord had meant EVERY other people, Book of Mormon statements to the effect of the Lord leading other peoples to the American continent could be fatally compromised–as I stated in my article.
You quote II Nephi 1:8: “‘And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.'”
But people emmigrating from a country are no longer part of that country. One my ancestor left Sweden and became an American citizen, he was no longer a Swede. And his American-born children were no more Swedes than, say, President Monson. 😉
You say, “2. ‘…those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem…. possess this land unto themselves.’ ‘Themselves’ excludes anyone who did not come from Jerusalem.”
Not necessarily. Any group of “them” can allow whomever they please as part of “them”–much as the Church permitted me–who was born into a non-LDS family–to become LDS. The Priesthood, Church buildings and other property owned by the Latter-day Saints are just as much owned by me as by a life-long Latter-day Saint.
Unless, of course, you’re claiming that, because I was born a “Gentile,” I am not really a Latter-day Saint, and thus ineligible to be a member of the Bishopric, or to hold any other calling. 😉
You said, “We have no idea what peoples came here during the thousand years between the Nephites and Columbus, so ‘pre-Columbian’ DNA samples may not be evidence of others during the Nephite period.”
That is true. We also have no idea what peoples came here during the Nephite civilisation’s existence.
You continue: “As to the DNA being non-Semitic, how do we know what the Lehite/Mulekite DNA looked like 2600 years ago? This is a complex subject beyond my understanding….”
My training is in economics, finance, international business, and in statistics. I’m no expert, either! 😉
I’m not categorically insisting on the presence of non-Lehite/Jaredite immigrants to this hemisphere. Rather, I’m just stating that this is most probable (I could, of course, be wrong! 😉 ). On the other hand, you are insisting that there are no such immigrants. To me, this gives no place for the possibility of error, either in their understanding of God’s explanation (which the Nephites freely admit could happen–in the title page of the Book of Mormon!), or in yours.
You said: “You mentioned evidence of ancient Bering Strait migration to America. You have probably read the article, DNA and the Book of Mormon, by Dr. David Stewart.”
Indeed, I have. He is a respected colleague, and I consider him both a friend and a brother in Christ. However, this does not mean we don’t have differences in opinion. We have spent some time discussing many of those differences, and I like to think that I contributed to making his papers stronger, even if I am unconvinced of some of his points–as he is, no doubt, unconvinced of some of mine.
You say, “Anyway, the difference in our conclusions comes from the fact that you begin with the belief and premise that there were others here in America when Lehi arrived, and then you search for evidence in the Book of Mormon to support that premise.”
Actually, no. I began with the assumption that, because God had shown me the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, the numbers mentioned therein are largely accurate, though possibly not in a way that one might think. Moreover, I realised that the statistical analysis by anti-Mormons such as http://www.josephlied.com was deeply flawed (I’m not sure of your training, but I AM sure you’d agree with my conclusions. 😉 ). I then did a socio-economic analysis of the text for clues of how such numbers might be possible. Of course, my conclusions are my “judgment call” of what was most likely.
You conclude: “I begin with the Lord’s promise to Lehi that they would ‘possess this land unto themselves’ and then search for evidence that would contradict the promise. I haven’t found any.”
Neither have I. However, I’m aware of no faithful Latter-day Saint (Certainly not I!) who claims that the Lord’s promises were contradicted.
Steven,
Excellent!! We have some great common ground and our different opinions are centered on the understanding of who “they and “themselves” are referring to in the Lord’s covenant with Lehi. Let’s have another look at the covenant:
2 Nephi 1:9
“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…”
According to the grammatical rules of English, in this sentence and context the pronouns “they” and “themselves” can only refer to the people previously identified—that is, “those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem.”
Your analogies and efforts to make “they” and “themselves” inclusive of many others, from who knows where, are commendable but nevertheless wrong, in my opinion. The covenant specifically excludes anyone who did not come out of Jerusalem. The Lord ties his own hands with this covenant, until such time as those from Jerusalem stop keeping His commandments. The covenant has then been broken and the Lord is free to bring in people from “other nations” as He sees fit, as we read in the subsequent verses:
2 Nephi 1:10-11
10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in 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 Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
11 Yea, [then] he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.
I suspect that your determination to read “others” into the text stems from your belief in the “Limited Geography Theory,” which requires that there be “others” on the North American Continent during the Nephite period. As I do not believe in the LGT my reading of the text is not influenced by it. The LGT complicates a lot of things. 🙂
Shalom
Theodore
Hi Theodore!
**Excellent!! We have some great common ground and our different opinions are centered on the understanding of who “they and “themselves” are referring to in the Lord’s covenant with Lehi.**
We’ve ALWAYS have had common ground: We both believe the Book of Mormon to be authentic; and we both believe that the Nephites numbered what the text says it does. Where we differ is with the mechanics of the population growth, and who is a Nephite.
**Let’s have another look at the covenant:
2 Nephi 1:9
“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…”
According to the grammatical rules of English, in this sentence and context the pronouns “they” and “themselves” can only refer to the people previously identified—that is, “those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem.”**
They are the main ones, yes. The verse could also be referring to the culture. For example, in the Old Testament, Israelites who have never been anywhere near the Middle East are considered part of the Chosen People, whereas Canaanites who lived in the land aren’t.
Moreover, the USA could be considered part of the “Anglosphere,” even though most Americans are not of English descent.
**Your analogies and efforts to make “they” and “themselves” inclusive of many others, from who knows where, are commendable but nevertheless wrong, in my opinion.**
And your exclusion is likewise wrong–in MY opinion! 😉
It is certain that one or both of us is wrong. Thus far, I am unconvinced by your reasoning–as you are by mine.
Maybe some day, enough evidence will crop up to convince one or both of us to move from our position, though, it seems, I am less wedded to my view, as it is a suggested POSSIBLE way that the Nephite number could add up to the Book of Mormon figures. I do think, however, that my view is, at present, the most plausible candidate.
**The covenant specifically excludes anyone who did not come out of Jerusalem.**
But that is what the text does NOT say.
Just as illustrated in the Bible [Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 4:5-7], Gentiles who are baptised are Israelites by adoption. Likewise, outsiders who wilfully join the Nephites and live the Gospel are actually Nephites by adoption–and are heir to everything the Nephites by birth are [Mosiah 5:7].
**The Lord ties his own hands with this covenant, until such time as those from Jerusalem stop keeping His commandments. The covenant has then been broken and the Lord is free to bring in people from “other nations” as He sees fit.**
Since most Nephites were NOT living the Gospel from early on, it seems that the Lord’s hands got UNTIED fairly quickly! 😉
More seriously, Daniel’s and others’ righteousness obviously didn’t keep the Lord from executing judgment against Jerusalem! As you see, even when Jerusalem fell, some of those in the city WERE keeping the commandments.
**I suspect that your determination to read “others” into the text stems from your belief in the “Limited Geography Theory,” which requires that there be “others” on the North American Continent during the Nephite period. As I do not believe in the LGT my reading of the text is not influenced by it. The LGT complicates a lot of things. 🙂 **
Actually, neither the “Limited Geography Theory” nor the “Hemispheric Theory” REQUIRES other peoples–nor are they prohibited by either theory.
Strictly speaking, I am not a believer in either theory, because both fail to explain some of the textual and other evidences. However, I think that the truth lies in some hybrid of the two.
As an aside, I think that the “Great Lakes Theory,” which has sprung up again in recent times, is even MORE out of line with textual and other evidences. I grew up in the Great Lakes region (If you must know, I grew up in “Chicagoland.” Go Cubs! 😉 ), and I can tell you that neither January nor April (the usual candidates for the first month of the year!) are warm enough for people to go around wearing loin cloths outdoors–at least not until the Medieval Warm Period, some six centuries after the end of Nephite civilisation! 😉
Pax!
Steven,
In reference to the question you raise about when the covenant with Lehi may have been broken, the Nephites had one of the most righteous and perfect societies ever recorded for 165 years after the visitation of Christ. Obviously the covenant had not been broken prior to that time.
I agree that the “Hemispheric Theory” does not require other peoples, but I think that the “Limited Geography Theory” does require “others” because of the ample evidence that much of the continent was covered with people during the Nephite period.
Loin cloths would be OK in Louisiana (Zarahemla?) or in Georgia (Bountiful?) in April. 🙂
Hello, Theodore!
You said:
**In reference to the question you raise about when the covenant with Lehi may have been broken, the Nephites had one of the most righteous and perfect societies ever recorded for 165 years after the visitation of Christ.**
But that was *after* Christ’s visit to the New World. Moreover, it was His government–not Lehi’s or Nephi’s.
**Obviously the covenant had not been broken prior to that time.**
No, it is NOT obvious. In fact, it doesn’t even follow.
The era of good feeling and righteousness mentioned in IV Nephi was a restoration of blessings, rather than a continuation of the same Nephite government that varied from good to evil.
**I agree that the “Hemispheric Theory” does not require other peoples, but I think that the “Limited Geography Theory” does require “others” because of the ample evidence that much of the continent was covered with people during the Nephite period.**
Actually, it was the land that was covered. See Helaman 11:20 and Mormon 1:7. If the Nephite land was limited, then it is unnecessary for the land to be occupied by others.
Now, I believe that others did occupy the Western Hemisphere, but it isn’t because the LGT demands it.
**Loin cloths would be OK in Louisiana (Zarahemla?) or in Georgia (Bountiful?) in April. 🙂 **
I modern times, probably. We’re at our warmest since the “Medieval Optimum,” when Greenland was actually green. 😉 Prior to that (in antiquity), cold weather was not uncommon, even in April.
But, even if the weather were right, the geography doesn’t mesh with the Book of Mormon text. 😉
Brother Steven,
Obviously it is not obvious to you that the Lord’s covenant with Lehi (2 Nephi 1:9) was still in force at the coming of Christ. Let me see if I can help you. 🙂
2 Ne 1:10-11
“10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in 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 Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.”
The covenant would not be voided unit after the Nephites:
1. Had a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and of all men
2. Knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world
3. Having power given to them to do all things by faith
4. Having all the commandments from the beginning
These things were not given to the Nephites until Christ came and revealed them.
3 Nephi 26:1,3
“AND now it came to pass that when Jesus had told these things he expounded them unto the multitude; and he did expound all things unto them, both great and small…And he did expound all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory–yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fervent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away;”
This stuff has not even been given to us as yet. Mormon was going to write them but the Lord told him not to. The Lord would try our faith first and if we would not believe the things Mormon would write then the greater things would be withheld (3 Nephi 26:8-12). These things are also on the sealed portion of the plates given to Joseph Smith as written by Moroni from the plates of Ether (Ether 4:1-7). Mosiah kept them from the Nephites until after the coming of Christ.
“And after Christ truly had showed himself unto his people he commanded that they should be made manifest. (Ether 4:2)
The covenant had to have been in force until after the coming of Christ, and then for at least another 165 years.
Incidentally, I came across another scripture today that also affirms there were no “others” up until the days of King Benjamin.
“And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem…” (Mosiah 1:11).
If there were others, King Benjamin would have had to word this differently (or give the Nephites another name by which they could be distinguished from the “others.” 🙂 )
**But, even if the weather were right, the geography doesn’t mesh with the Book of Mormon text. **
According to whom? For further enlightenment on this subject you can check out “A North American Setting For The Book Of Mormon” by yours truly. 🙂
http://brandley.poulsenll.org/files/A_North_American_Setting_For_The_Book_Of_Mormon.doc
Or just use: http://brandley.poulsenll.org.
Larry Poulsen has just gracioulsy put it up on his website. It’s about 20 MB file so give it a little time to download.
Brother Theodore
Hi Theodore!
I think the Book of Mosiah eloquently makes my point that the Nephites broke their covenant with the Lord, and it occured during the reign of wicked King Noah.
Recall that, when the Lord Jesus Christ restored the Nephite inheritance, He combined all those who were repentant/righteous into the Nephite nation.
I will read your article in the near future. If I find that you are persuasive, I will say so.
But I make no promises! 😉
Meanwhile, let us join together in the knowledge that the Book of Mormon and Gospel are both truly of God!
Agreed!