Question: What scriptures might challenge the view of a limited geography and the Nephites not being alone on the continent or other issues regarding DNA?

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: What scriptures might challenge the view of a limited geography and the Nephites not being alone on the continent or other issues regarding DNA?

There are five that could potentially be cited by critics

JS History 1:34

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…

Alternative approaches

• Focus on “an account”, “the former”, and “this continent”. The statement may be read to mean that the Book of Mormon is not giving the “full account” or “the entire history” of the inhabitants. “[T]he former” implies that these inhabitants (at least in their majority) are now no longer here. “This continent” can have alternate meanings. In Joseph Smith’s day, This could apply to the Western Hemisphere, the North American continent (from Mexico to Canada) or simply the United States (the North American interpretation of "this continent" could actually work with the Hinterland Model for Geography). We have seen also that Joseph was willing to shift his views of geography with where he believed the best evidence was shored up for the text. “The source from whence they sprang” can refer to geographical movement instead of DNA. Joseph Smith’s day didn’t have a concept of DNA—so there is a good possibility that he didn’t mean to say that literally every person in the western hemisphere came from a single ancestor.

• Treat the passage as Joseph’s memory of the event. We have seen how Joseph’s recounting of visions could emphasize different details at different times and that he recalled the events differently with each retelling (See First Vision). Perhaps some details aren’t being recalled accurately as this account was, after all, penned in 1838—over ten years after the fact.

“kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations” 2 Nephi 1:8-9

Matthew Roper:

One reading of this statement could be that Lehi’s people inherited an empty promised land when their ship arrived, but the Book of Mormon allows for other interpretations. Is there a distinction, for example, between “nations” and other social groups? Lehi would have been familiar with nations such as Babylon and Egypt that had well-organized armies capable of waging sophisticated warfare and extending their power over large distances. Lehi’s prophecy could allow for smaller societies that did not yet merit the description “nations.” For instance, Sorenson’s model of Book of Mormon geography places the land of Nephi in highland Guatemala near the site of Kaminaljuy˙. At the time Nephi and his people separated from Laman’s followers to found their own settlement in the early sixth century B.C., archaeological evidence shows that that region had only scattered, sparsely populated villages. Also, to “possess this land unto themselves” does not necessarily mean to be the only inhabitants but can also mean–as it often does in Book of Mormon contexts–that a group has the ability to control and exercise authority over the land and its resources (see, for example, Mosiah 19:15; 23:29; 24:2; Alma 27:22, 26). Significantly, however, even Lehi’s statement about “other nations” is conditional. Lehi indicates that the promised protection from threatening nations would be removed when his children dwindled in unbelief. Sorenson has observed that the Lamanites, at least, dwindled in unbelief from the beginning. How then could Lehi’s prophecy about “other nations” being brought in have been kept long in abeyance after that? Furthermore, the early Nephites generally did the same thing within a few centuries. Their wickedness and apostasy culminated in the escape of Mosiah and his group from the land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla (see Omni 1:13-14). And if the Lord somehow did not at those times bring in “other nations,” then surely he would have done so after Cumorah, 1100 years prior to Columbus. Even if there were no massive armed invasions of strange groups to be reported, we need not be surprised if relatively small groups of strange peoples who were neither so numerous nor so organized as to be rivals for control of the land could have been scattered or infiltrated among both Nephites and Lamanites without their constituting the “other nations” in the threatening sense of Lehi’s prophecy. Thus in the terms of Lehi’s prophecy, “others” could and probably even should have been close at hand and available for the Lord to use as instruments against the straying covenant peoples any time after the arrival of Nephi’s boat.

Ether 2:5

Matthew Roper:

…it is evident that the passage from Ether 2:5, stating that the Jaredites were “commanded…that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been,” when taken in context, actually refers to the wilderness through which the Jaredites were to travel in the Old World and says nothing about the populations of the New World at that time

Doctrine and Covenants 49:24

24 But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose

The reading with the most explanatory power is that the flourishing is at a future date. Therefore this poses no problem for Latter-day Saints.

Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (April 6 and October 22, 1845

The 1845 Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles was a document written in response to a revelation given to Joseph Smith 19 January 1841 (D&C 124:1-11). Since it is a document signed by all of the highest governing officers of the Church, this does hold weight. There are generally two cited passages from this that cause some controversy:

The city of Zion, with its sanctuary and priesthood, and the glorious fulness of the gospel, will constitute a standard which will put an end to jarring creeds and political wranglings, by uniting the republics, states, provinces, territories, nations, tribes, kindred, tongues, people, and sects of North and South America in one great and common bond of brotherhood; while truth and knowledge shall make them free, and love cement their union.

The question is why specify only North and South America? The reading suggests that this is referring to the Lamanites. So are all the people of North and South America Lamanites? Technically, yes. If Lehi had any descendants with the existing New World population, then, after 2600 years, nearly all of the people living on the North and South American continent would have him as an ancestor. See here for more details]. The other passage is this:

He has revealed the origin and the records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny.-And we know it.

Interpretive Approaches

• ”Origin” can simply refer to covenant origin as in the prophecy of Lehi (2 Nephi 1: 6) or simply the geographic origin. It does not have to refer to ancestral origins. Again, nothing was known about DNA until 1869 when Friederich Miescher discovered “nuclein” in the pus of discarded bandages from surgery.
• ”records”—in the early days of the Church, close to nothing was known about the early tribes of America. To have a set of records be brought forth was a miracle to them. This does not have to mean that the Book of Mormon was the record of the entire American continent, but that certain records had been revealed. There’s nothing that requires us to read it straight forward.
• ”aboriginal tribes” – one of the definitions of “aboriginal” in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary for aboriginal is “primitive”. Primitive suggests that we can be getting a record pertaining to the beginning but not necessarily the beginning. As in, we are getting records from people among the earliest tribes but not the earliest tribes. This reading is strengthened by contemporary usage of the term “aborigine” and “aboriginal”.
• ”America” – the phrase could have been used can be used to refer to the entire Western Hemisphere, the North American continent, or the United States. Even in this very proclamation we have “this continent to refer to the United States in “He has commanded us to gather together his Saints, on this continent, and build up holy cities and sanctuaries – And we know it.” This refers clearly to revelations in Doctrine and Covenants. Earlier we have references to the holy city (new Jerusalem in Jackson County) and temple (Nauvoo Temple [D&C reference]) to be built on “this continent”.

This is strengthened by the changing views of John Page and John Taylor to eschew any South American geography from their views after the publication of Catherwood’s explorations of the Yuchatan in 1845—after the publication of the proclamation.

Historical Approach

Another approach to this objection is to not interpret this necessarily as a statement about geography nor DNA but of ultimate destiny of the Native Americans. This is a time in Church history where the Saints are actively proselyting Native Americans because of our firm belief that they are a covenant people, a remnant of the Lamanites (Doctrine and Covenants 3:18, 20; 10:48; 19:27; 28:8-9, 14; 30:6; 32:2; 49:24; 54:8). The United States through President Andrew Jackson is trying to forcefully relocate thousands of Native Americans off their lands because of the Indian Removal Act. The proclamation may have solidified the covenant nature of the Native Americans and their divine right to their land. Going back to the phrase in question, it states that "[God] has revealed the origin and the records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny.-And we know it." Thus it's possible that reading this with declarations of Book of Mormon geography and DNA is the wrong approach altogether. This approach would benefit more from more historical research into the origins and setting of the proclamation which is forthcoming.

Authoritative Approach

A different approach is to deny the binding status of the proclamation altogether. The proclamation was not canonized and the scriptures themselves announce that the canon is the standard of law for the Church (D&C 42: 12-13, 15-16, 56-60; 104:58-59). The revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants itself announces that the proclamation should be written by Joseph Smith and Robert B. Thompson, not the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Joseph Smith had already been martyred by the time of this proclamation. Therefore the proclamation can be treated as more of a historical document that outlines the beliefs of the Quorum of the Twelve at that time.

Some might object to this approach by citing Doctrine and Covenants 1:37. That scripture states:

37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

Notice how the scripture makes a distinction between commandments and prophecies and promises. The scripture in D&C 124:1-14 is a commandment. The Lord does not say that all commandments will be fulfilled but the prophecies and promises. He says that commandments are "true and faithful." Commandments do not have to be followed. We have agency. That's the point of giving a commandment in the first place! Look at what the Lord said about the commandment to build a temple in independence missouri (in the very same revelation as this commandment given to Joseph Smith!).

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

Why couldn't we apply a similar scripture to this situation? Joseph Smith in all likeliness tried to fulfill this commandment but his enemies came upon him and hindered him from performing that commandment by martyring him. Wouldn't the Lord simply not require that work at Joseph's hands anymore? Robert Thompson died only 7 months later in August 1841 of tuberculosis. Therefore, he couldn't keep the commandment to have Robert Thompson help him write the proclamation! Could Joseph have abandoned the project after Thompson died using similar reasoning given in verse 49 above?

If one wants to take the position that the proclamation must anyway come forth at some point then perhaps a document written by Joseph Smith (and maybe Robert Thompson) will come forth through the prophet similar to how Doctrine and Covenants 7 came forth.

All of these approaches might seem off putting to some Latter-day Saints, but this is the type of contemplation of the Gospel that is demanded of us. In Doctrine and Covenants 88:77-79, we read:

77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall each one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms

Notice how this revelation gives us the commandment to instruct each other in all things so that we can better understand the Gospel and vice versa. Going to the original historical context of something and interpreting in light of that context is something that will help us to be better instructed in "theory" and ultimately keep our testimonies of God, the Savior, and their Church strong.

Notes

BACK TO TOP