One of the areas we need to be careful about in
reading the scriptural record or other statements about the Land of Promise is
in understanding what is being said and why. Sometimes people hold a strict
interpretation when it is obviously not stated as such, and other times too
loose an interpretation when no leeway is intended.
As an example, “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was
separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the
Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth
upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the
promised land” (1 Nephi 13:12).
In
this passage, a specific man is
suggested, not just “a man,” for the “the spirit wrought upon the man.”
Thus,
we can look to learning who that man was that Nephi saw.
In
another example, “And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles,
and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the
Gentiles” (2 Nephi 10:11).
In
this case, the looser interpretation is in the term “no king,” and the
stricter interpretation is in the word “upon.”
Another
example is Moroni’s words to Joseph Smith: “"When I first looked upon him
I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me
that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name
was Moroni. That God has a work for me to do... He said there was a book
deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants
of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."
In
this case, people interpret the term “this continent,” by today’s standards,
i.e., North America; however, as has been stated here many times, in the day of
Joseph Smith and as late as World War II, the term continent referred to the
single American Continent—there were not two continents (North America Continent or South America
Continent).
This
is being brought up because we have received numerous inquiries regarding the
passage about “no kings” and its meaning. As an example, one reader wrote in recently and stated: “The Book of Mormon states
several times that the land which they were led to, was the Promised Land, or a
Choice Land. According to the Book of Mormon, the Promised Land shall be a Land
of Liberty, with no kings upon the land, and be discovered by a Gentile whom
the Spirit of God wrought, to cross ‘many waters’ in order to find. Now, the
Gentile who discovered the Americas is generally thought to be Christopher
Columbus. In the 1879 Book of Mormon, Orson Pratt added the footnote to 1 Nephi
13:12 which named this gentile as Christopher Columbus. How then do you feel
these references are not about the United States as the Land of Promise?”
Columbus
landing on Watling Island in the Bahamas, which he claimed for Spain
Many members and people seem to think that Columbus
discovered the area now known as the United States. He did not—he explored
areas that are now the Bahamas, Cuba and Haiti, as well as setting foot on
Central America and South America on the Paria Peninsula in present-day
Venezuela. On the other hand, North America was first discovered by Leif Erickson in the 11th century,
and both John and Sebastian Cabot discovered New Foundland (Canada) in
1497, but neither entered what is today U.S. territory. The first person to
sail to what is now the U.S. was the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de'Leon, who
was with Columbus on his second expedition in 1493, settled on Hispaniola
(Dominican Republic), later discovered Puerto Rico (1506), and in 1513,
discovered Florida—the first man to actually discover and set foot on what is
now the area of the United States. He explored what is now southeast Georgia
and Florida, and in 1521 tried to set up a farming colony of 200 people in
Florida, though the Calusa Indians
attacked them and the colonists fled to Cuba where de Leon died of his wounds.
Does
that make the scripture wrong? No. Not to those who understand that the vision
Nephi was given related to what we now call North and South America—or the
Western Hemisphere--this continent.
As
for a land of liberty, since the early part of the 19th century, all
of North and South America and almost all of the islands in proximity to it,
would be considered lands of liberty, though there are sharp differences in
degrees of economic freedom. Liberty, of course, is “the state of being free
within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way
of life, behavior, or political views.” It is the state where a person can
enjoy the freedom to pursue their own interests, and to control their own
actions; where one can believe as they choose, and act upon those beliefs
without infringing upon another’s beliefs and freedoms. Certainly, in this era,
such as been achieved throughout almost all of the Americas—it is the economic
successes and failures of various countries within the Western Hemisphere that
separates one country from another.
Now,
as for kings, the scripture reads: “There
shall be no kings upon the land” (2
Nephi 10:11, emphasis mine). There has never been a reigning king upon the
lands of North and South America—over
them, but not upon them, unless you
count native Americans, such as the Four Mohawk Kings, who were three chiefs of
the Iroquois Confederacy and a Mahican of the Algonquian peoples in the early
18th century.
The Four Kings. LtoR: Etow Oh Koam
(Mohican), Sa Ga Yeath Qua Pieth Tow (King of Maguas), Ho Nee Yeath
Taw No Row (King Canajoharie and Tee Yee Ho Ga Row (King Hendrick), who
visited Queen Anne in England in 1710
One might also make an exception for Hawaii, who was
ruled over by Queen Liliuokalani, who was upon the land. But it is doubtful that one
would count James Jesse Strang, who reigned as the crowned king of an
ecclesiastical monarchy upon Beaver
Islands in Michigan over 12,000 people.
On the other hand, King George III was king over
what is now the United States; Canada has always had a king/queen, thought it actually
rules itself; Spain ruled much of South America. In fact, even today there are thirteen
monarchies in the Americas, i.e.,
self-governing states and territories in North and South America where
supreme power resides with an individual, who is recognized as the head of
state. Each is a constitutional monarch, where the sovereign inherits his or
her office, usually keeps it until death or abdication, and is bound by laws
and customs in the exercise of their powers.
Ten
of these monarchies are independent states, and equally share Queen Elizabeth
II, who resides in the United Kingdom, as their respective sovereign, making
them part of a global grouping known as the Commonwealth of realms: Antigua and
Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize,Canada,Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
The
remaining three are dependencies of European monarchies. As such, none of the
monarchies in the Americas has a resident monarch.
Left: King Willem-Alexander of the
Netherlands; Center: Governor Colin Richards; Right: Queen Margrethe II of
Denmark
Aruba, Curacao and Saint Maarten are constituent
countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and thus have King
Willem-Alexander as their sovereign, as well as the remaining islands forming
the Caribbean Netherlands. In addition, there is Greenland as a constituent
country under the monarchy of Denmark, with Queen Margrethe II as the reigning
sovereign. And lastly, the Falklands Islands off the coast of Argentina, under
the control of Great Britain, whose monarchy is represented by Colin Roberts,
the Governor of the Falklands Islands, and the Commissioner for South Georgia
and the Souht Sandwich Islands.
Again, the question is, does this make the scripture
wrong? No. Not when we understand that the comment is directed to the general
overall understanding that this Western Hemisphere, i.e., North and South
America, were to be kept free of the type of kings and dictators that ruled the
Old World from the beginning. Unlike that world, where people were born into a
station from which they could generally never escape; they were also subject to
sovereign whose whim could dictate, change and even end their lives. This type
of living eventually was eliminated in most of the Western Hemisphere, where
countries are, by comparison, far more free
than those of the Old World.
The point is, the scriptural record of the Book of
Mormon is never wrong—people’s misinterpretations and misunderstandings may
make it seem so. It is imperative that we read the scriptural record in the way
intended, understanding what words mean and especially what they meant in the
time of Joseph Smith whose translation we read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's subject to interpretation. Sometimes the Saints are referred to as "gentiles" and sometimes they are considered part of the covenant with Israel. Strang was King of Beaver Island, but ruled over Saints. They didn't think of themselves as Gentiles. But he was the unquestioned king of his people, with the divine right to rule and a sophisticated law by which to govern, and his kingdom would have been comparable to many ancient kingdoms. Considering he built it from nothing within 6 years and it was growing, it nothing short of astonishing.
ReplyDeleteColumbus was not named by revelation, as far as I know, and I have heard the theory that it was he that prophesied in the book of Mormon questioned. What we now know of him personally would make him an unlikely candidate. We now know that others came to the Americas earlier.
ReplyDelete