Comments on: America and 1 Nephi 13

By: LDS Anarchist

LDS Anarchist — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 01:19:36 +0000

Interesting bunch of comments here, and also the initial post. Today I took another look at 1 Nephi 13 and 14, using a “shadow fulfillment” approach, and came up with some entirely new ideas. Check it out here:

http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/1-nephi-13-14-commentary-using-ctcs-view/

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:50:33 +0000

We don’t know where Lehi landed. The Mezo-American theory of the Nephites is just that, a THEORY. For all we know the Nephites and Lamanites were the Mound Builders of the Mississipian Culture. More and more evidence of that civilization is coming light all the time. Who knows. But nobody knows where Lehi landed.

The only place we know of with a surety in the Book of Mormon is the Hill Cumorah, located in New York State. I used to believe the 2 Hill Cumorahs theory but not anymore.

As for brother Frederick Wiliams who stated that Lehi landed in Chile, that’s never been substantiated by the Church authorities because too many members thought it was doctrine which it is not.

So neither you nor I know where Lehi landed. Until we do it’s just fun to speculate.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:04:57 +0000

If the promised land is the United States, why did Lehi and his family not land in what is now the USA?

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:02:37 +0000

The problem with saying that Columbus wasn’t the first to arrive in the Americas is that it is irrelevant. Sure Leif Ericsson had a small colony in Canada for a few years but abandoned it. Colombus is credited for starting the European colonization as it should be.

Mexico doesn’t fit the description in verse 30 about being lifted above all other nations. Since Mexico was defeated and occupied by the French from 1861 to 1867 it doesn’t sound like they were “delivered out of the hands of all other nations” either. Since most Latin American countries did not become independent until at least 30 or 40 years after the United States they don’t seem to come across as a land of promise anymore.

Perhaps the Nephites did once live in Mexico and Central America but these places are no longer a choice land. The only countries that really prospered (like verse 20 says) were the U.S. and Canada though Canada did not become independent by fighting against their mother gentiles. Sure we can say these are too vague but looking at Latin America’s history and stating that it too is the promised land is very difficult to imagine.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It seems to apply to the whole of both the North and South American Continents. Though, the phrase, "and they went forth out of captivity" seems to be more indicative of the impetus behind much of the settling in the north.

Jack

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

That would really depend on your definition of captivity. Forgive me if I seem cynical regarding American immigrants as having been held captive in the UK, Germany or wherever else from which they emigrated. Or at least being more captive than the Spanish who settled in Chile, the Portuguese who settled in Brazil or the French who settled in Canada.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Many colonists fled to the Americas seeking religious freedom. At least three North American Colonies were established for the purpose of securing that freedom. Others, though they were not originally established for that purpose, later adopted the cause.

Jack

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Okay. 1 Nephi 13 says nothing about freedom of religious expression, however.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Then what I'm saying really doesn't depend on my definition of captivity, does it?

Jack

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Kim,

It's my rhetorical way of throwing the ball back in your court.

In spite of the "vagueness" in Nephi's prophecy there seems to be enough clarity in history to argue over what "coming out of captivity" might mean as it relates to colonizing the Americas.

I speculate on an idea that has to do with religious intolerance, but you don't considered it worthy of argumentation because it is not specified in the "vague" text as THE particular captivity from which the gentiles were fleeing.

In other words, I'm fully aware that the text is silent on that count. My speculation can only be derived from a particular historical viewpoint--warped as it may be.

Jack(ass)