• Reader: “We know from the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites occupied the original Land of Lehi and the land southward. The Nephites occupied the land Northward.”
In loose terms,
the Land of Lehi was all that land south of the narrow strip of wilderness,
however, onece Nephi fled northward and settled in a land and built the city of
Nephi, that land around was called the Land of Nephi; later when Mosiah fled
northward and found Zarahemla, the Lamanites changed the name to the city and
Land of Lehi-Nephi (the Nephites always called it the Land of Nephi)
Now, within the Land Southward, divided at the narrow strip of wilderness, was the Land South and the Land North, as is stated in: “Now the land south was called Lehi and the land north was called Mulek, which was after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south. This is verified by the fact that Mulek landed along the West Sea coast near where the city of Zarahemla was later located (Omni 1:16), which, of course was in the Land Southward, as was all of the Land of Zarahemla.
On the other hand, the Land Northward was the ancient homeland within the Land of Promise of the Jaredites, and not occupied by the Nephites until around 55 BC (Alma 63:9; Helaman 3:3).
• Reader: “If we are talking North and South America, that seems like an awful long journey for the two to interact with each other.”
Response: Keep in mind, we are not saying North and South America was the land promised to Lehi. That was a small portion of the overall land, otherwise, if it was all the and then there would be no place for the tribe of Ephraim, which is to inherit the much greater portion (likely all of North America), while the tribe of Mennasseh would inherit the other overall portion (likely all of South America).
Overall Land of
Promise with a portion promised to Lehi and his descendants
The problem is, that modern man is so accustomed to think in terms of North Aemrica being one colntinent and South America being another continent, with a narrow isthmus connecting the two called Central America. The Lord does not think in such terms. He, as well as Moroni, do not acknowledge national boundaries that vary, change and are redrawn by man over thousands of years, which are a few days to the Lord (2 Peter 3:8), but sees a “land” as being an area that fits his purpose—which is so long range, the human mind simply does not think in terms like that. As an example, when a loved one is lost, man thinks of it in temporal terms, i.e., they are gone, dead, non-existent now; but God thinks of things on an eternal or spiritual basis (D&C 29:34)—they simply stepped from the temporal sphere into the eternal sphere; no big deal!
After all, all the land is His. Portions of it He has reserved for certain purposes. The Western Hemisphere was reserved after the Flood for His special purpose, of which He promised a portion of it to Lehi and his righteous posterity (2 Npehi 1:3,5); He also provided a portion to the Jaredites (Ether 7:27), which the lord stated “that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other land, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people” (Ether 2:7).
• Reader: “Seeing that they were constantly at war with each other, and sending missionaries and such that would be very hard. They must have been closer in proximity to each other, so that to me is another reason the heartland model makes more sense.”
The Heartland
Model. Area to the west all the way to and into the eastern Rockies is called “Lamanite
Lands,” with the other lands out of directional location to that described by
Mormon, and all the seas in the north
The Major Area of
the Book of Mormon storyline covers a much smaller area than the total land
promised to Lehi and his descendants—from the land of Zarahemla to the Land of
Nephi
Response: First: It is very difficult for someone with little knowledge to convince someone with much greater knowledge on a given subject. Secondly, we are not trying to convince you of anything. You responded to our work in a semi-critical way and we simply replied, since you obviously did not know much about the matters on which you spoke and were critical. To us, our job in this matter is to provide information, how someone uses it is up to them—we all have our free agency to use as we see fit. On the other hand, when people tell us something that is blatantly not correct, comparing their opinions and speculations with our use of the scriptural record, we do respond, if not for the person commenting to us, certainly for other people who read the threads that appear after our publications so they know there are legitimate answers to the questions and comments raised.
No comments:
Post a Comment