The Americas: Still a Land of Promise?
The Book of Mormon seems to present the idea that the Americas have been saved as a special place. Specifically, it was a place whre the conditions were created under which the gospel could be restored and could flourish. For a while the saints were accordingly asked to gather here. But the saints are no longer asked to migrate.
In fact, as we have become a world church, the saints have been discouraged from migrating to the United States. At BYU Hawaii, our goal is to educate students from around the world so that they can lead in their homelands and, for members of the church, so that they can lead in the church there. This push to foster “returnability” is now becoming part of BYU Provo’s mission as well. We have been lold that the saints are to gather in the stakes of Zion, in their “lands,” plural, of promise.
So my question is–Are the Americas still a land of promise. Is there anything still unique, vital to the gospel, especially Captain-Moroni-esque, or otherwise laudatory about the Americas in spiritual terms. (Which part of the Americas might be part of another post.)
On page 77 of your January Ensign are a couple of tables. One is a list of the ten countries with highest Church membership. All but one of the ten are American nations. (The Philippines comes in fifth with 526,000 members.) The membership of these nine countries at the end of 2003 sums to 9.1 million. Worldwide Church membership passed 12 million during 2004. From UN figures, North America and Latin America in 2005 together have 891 million of the world’s 6.4 billion people. So 3 out of 4 members of the Church are found on these continents that are the home to 1 out of 7 of the world’s people.
The second table is a list of the ten countries with the highest percentage of their population who are members of the Church. Six of those countries are Pacific Island nations and four are Latin American. It is also noted that four more small Pacific Island nations would belong on that table but were kept off because each has fewer than 10,000 members. Oceania has 33 million people, only half a percent of the world’s population. It would appear to account for at least half a million members of the Church.
It appears to me that the Americas along with the “isles of the sea” are still uniquely the gathering place of the Saints.
Comment by John Mansfield — 3/15/2005 @ 7:41 am
Europe has been a “promised land” for many centuries for many of our ancestors. It was to Europe that Paul brought the Gospel to the Gentiles. What happened after that–with the Great Apostasy–is history. But just as the Book of Mormon admonishes us not to disparage the Jews because, among other things, it is because of them that we have the Bible, I submit that we shouldn’t disregard the contribution of Europe in solidifying a commitment to Christianity for billions of people over the centuries. Of course, even in this context, the Book of Mormon notes that the Americas are a land of promise for people fleeing the oppression engendered by apostate Christianity. But I don’t see that as denigrating the role Europe has played in inculcating and preserving the essence of Christianity, even if corrupt in form.
But you have a good point in noting that it is no longer necessary for the building up of the Kingdom of God to emigrate out of a home country to “Zion.” This might someday be necessary again, who knows? But for now people should definitely stay in their home countries and build up Zion there by strengthening the stakes of Zion wherever they might be found. Just think if all those who converted in the mid-nineteenth century had stayed in England and Denmark! If the Church could have survived that way (arguably it could not, and that is why the Lord imbued the early saints with the “spirit of emigration,” as Brigham Young noted in his farewell letter to the converts in England after his missionary service there), then I could imagine the Church occupying a much more well respected position in both of those countries.
At any rate, the BoM does speak of the Americas as the promised land. But interestingly, in addressing the fate of the Jews–perhaps a broader reference to the House of Israel–the BoM also notes that they will be restored to the True Church and established “in all their lands of promise” (note the plural):
We have seen the Restoration of the True Church and the subsequent gathering of the saints through the spirit of emigration; are we in the next phase, that of establishing the House of Israel, i.e. the Latter-day Saints, “in all their lands of promise”?
Comment by john fowles — 3/15/2005 @ 10:26 am
“For a while the saints were accordingly asked to gather here.”
I think it is important to point out that the Saints were never asked to gather anywhere in the Americas. Rather they were only asked to gather in Utah (or generally the Intermountain west of the United States).
I also have to wonder about the establishment of all of the Americas as being the Land of Promise. If the current scholarly theories are correct and the Lehitic people stayed within a small area of what is now Mexico, couldn’t one infer that the Promised Land is the general area around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. What does that say about the United States.
Comment by Kim Siever — 3/15/2005 @ 10:38 am
Considering that second Ensign table, it can be inferred that Uruguay, Honduras and Bolivia account for 320,000 of the Church’s members. There are also temples in the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Venezuela and Columbia. It seems reasonable to suppose that each of those temples serves a district of at least 50,000 saints. Adding these people to the 9.1 million accounted in the first table, I feel safe saying that there that the Americas are home to 9.7 million Latter-day Saints. That is a small addition to the accounting of the Americas, but it is a large subtraction from the rest of the world. Only one out of six Latter-day Saints lives outside the Americas and the Pacific.
Comment by John Mansfield — 3/15/2005 @ 11:58 am
Just think if all those who converted in the mid-nineteenth century had stayed in England and Denmark! –John Fowles
Keep in mind that preaching in most Latin American nations didn’t begin until the 20th Century. Several of them didn’t have missionaries until the 1960’s. It seems worth mentioning too, for those with a particular connection to Germany, that the Church in Argentina and Brazil started among German immigrants in the 1920’s.
So it what ways does the migration to the Great Basin affect Europe today? My wife preached in Germany and Austria and was able to find and teach several converts, but it was her feeling that the decades of preaching there had done their job. Israel had largely been gathered.
Comment by John Mansfield — 3/15/2005 @ 12:23 pm
First what does “lands of promise” mean? It seems like it simply means that the Lord promised the Land to certain peoples. I don’t think it signifies anything else. Right?
While I certainly agree with John M.’s analysis of membership distribution, I’m not sure that I concur with the idea that the blood of Israel is spent in Europe. I too served in Europe, and despite having what regionally would be considered a very successful mission, I had a fraction of the opportunities as missionaries in the Americas. By the end of my mission, I realized that I was changing so drastically that if I were to have stayed longer my mission praxis would have drastically evolved. I guess what I am hinting at is that our current missionary effort in Europe is not consistent with what Europe needs. And I am not sure that I know what they need.
I find it fascinating that there was a time when there where more Saints in Europe than there were in the States. One could say that inter mountain west was “promised” to them. I don’t think it is anymore. I don’t know that there is a “promised land” for anybody (besides maybe the Jews).
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/15/2005 @ 12:41 pm
J,
I agree in a large way. In the talk mentioned here, by James E Faust, he claims, “We believe that the house of Israel today constitutes a large measure of the human family. ” That seems to say to me that most of the world has a large measure of the blood of israel still to be gathered. (see Abraham 2:11, especially the part about the literal seed of the body. I think there is Abraham’s seed all over the place.) I’m sure that there are lots descendents of close relatives of those European saints that are still waiting for the gospel. I do, however, think that they are of those who are blinded by the craftiness of men and are kept from the gospel because they do not know where to find it.
Europe indeed had a great hand in preserving what was left of Christianity. At the same time, they’ve had all the longer to come up with great ways to protect their territory. Italy is pretty bad that way. I, too, think we need to find the ways to begin a larger gathering in Europe. And then, Africa, China, Russia, etc., are just beginning to flower, or have yet to be opened significantly.
Kim,
While I do think that there are all sorts of reasons to very carefully consider the limited geography theory, at some point, it seems that the seed of Lehi spread out, as the proclamation Jonathan points out here would seem to indicate. Also, I’m not just thinking of Lehi and his family. I have in mind, also the restoration and the modern church. In Nephi’s vision, he seems to still link the Americas into one bundle in this way.
Additionally, I’m interestedin the idea of the New Jerusalem being built in the Americas and the fact that church leadership is centered here and it doesn’t look like that will change any time soon. What makes this place suited to that task, or is it just too much of a hassle to move everything, so it will stay here?
On the other hand, I was considering the call of Elder Uchtdorf. Here we have a European-born saint called as an apostle, and called, I might add as senior to Elder Bednar with quite a gap between the two and Elder Eyring. I’m not predicting who future presidents of the church will be. The Lord will make that decision, but it’s not like there’s not a chance that we will one day have a European president of the church.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/15/2005 @ 1:41 pm
P.S.–Sorry to all on the Archipelago. I’m not sure at all how this post got onto the Archipelago list twice with two different names when it’s only here at Splendid Sun once. I’m not trying to knowck other posts off the list–honest.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/15/2005 @ 1:50 pm
The post appeared twice on Splendid Sun. I saw both of them.
“it seems that the seed of Lehi spread out, as the proclamation Jonathan points out here would seem to indicate.”
What proclamation? Even if that is the case, that does not necessarily mean everywhere they settled was a promised land. If so, the theory that the lehitic people immigrated to the Pacific Islands then goes further to expanding the definition of “promised land”.
“I have in mind, also the restoration and the modern church.”
Do we have a record that states the Americas were promised to the modern church?
“In Nephi’s vision, he seems to still link the Americas into one bundle in this way.”
That’s complete speculation. Nephi’s vision (particularly chapter 13) could be about any country. The information therein is quite generic.
Comment by Kim Siever — 3/15/2005 @ 2:32 pm
Kim,
The information in 1Ne 13 may be generic in that it doesn’t attach specific names to persons or places, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find any other history than that which occured in the America’s to be a better match. There are other passages which indicate that the Gentiles being set up as a free people by the power of the Father “in this land” is part of a “sign” which signifies the beginning of the work of the Father. (3 Ne 21) There are also some scarry warnings to the Gentiles in the same chapter which, no doubt, many would have no trouble applying to those who live within the borders of the U.S.
Comment by Jack — 3/16/2005 @ 11:02 am
” a man among the Gentiles”: any of the hundreds of European explorers
“many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise”: Europeans immigrated to locations all over the Americas, not just the USA. Just think of the number of Germans in Brazil and Chile for example.
Mother of gentiles in battle with gentiles: could be Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Belize, Panama, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Argentina and other countries of the Americas that battled for their independence.
And so on.
If we are to take the position that the lehitic people settled near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, then perhaps the promised land isn’t the United States at all. Perhaps the promised land in its strictest sense refers to Mexico.
After all, Columbus landed in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico had two wars of independence (Spain and France), many Europeans immigrated there and many of the “seed of Nephi’s brethren” were persecuted there.
Again, there is nothing in I Nephi 13 that can be applied to the USA only.
Comment by Kim Siever — 3/17/2005 @ 6:18 pm
Kim,
I agree that there is nothing to say that the USA is the exclusive territory of the promises made about the Americas as a special land, though I don’t think we can leave the United States out of the equation. You do keep me from having to bring up the issue in another post of why we tend to forget Central and South America as if Zion and the promised land are both coextensive with the USA. Re-reading 1Ne 13, after reading your comment, I do think that there is much reason to believe that some of the promises are talking about Central and South America at least as much as North America.
As concerns the limited geography theory, I think it quite plausible, but at the same time, the proclamation that Jonathan points out in another post, would seem to support the idea that at some point the Lamanites became mixed with any other people who may have existed so that the Native Americans in the broadest sense were part of the family, so to speak.,
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/17/2005 @ 6:54 pm
Kim,
I think you’re the only one concerned with making sure that the U.S. isn’t singled out as the one and only promised land. I personally see it as the whole of America–at least as it relates to the promises given to those in the Book of Mormon. However, there are some indicators in the BoM which seem to point more to the northern hemisphere than the southern in terms of prophetic fullfillment–though I dare not quote them here as I’m likely to be labeled a racist or nationalist or what have you.
Comment by Jack — 3/18/2005 @ 1:37 am
It’s pretty clear the United States is definitely part of the “promised land” described in the BoM. Either 2 describes a nation free from bondage, tyranny, captivity, free from all other nations, a land of promise, a choice land above all others. Considering the mass of dictators that have controlled much of Central and South America for the last two hundred years I think the US and Canada are the best candidates.
However, I read a book awhile ago that discussed Joseph Smith’s run for the presidency just before he was murdered. Joseph publicly stated he felt all of North and South America should be part of the “Promissed Land”. In his political speeches he determined to make Canada part of the US by the end of his first term and to acquire all of Central and South America by the end of his second term. If I can find the book I’ll post the reference here. I found that idea to be, um, ambitious for a presidential candidate. Of course, Joseph Smith was pretty ambitious in everything he did.
Comment by Trenden — 3/18/2005 @ 12:06 pm
Trenden: Please do, I am very interested.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/18/2005 @ 12:12 pm
Jack,
I tend to think that the US is singled out a bit. I think that often it gets mixed up in politics. I was going to have another post on what you point to as the unpopularity of US nationalist sentiment and whether we feel that such sentiment has a place int he church, but since you bring it up, it does seem a subset of the topic, generally, of whether the Americas have any special relevance in a worldwide church. Please feel free to quote the book of mormon freely. I find it a most enlightening and acceptable text.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/18/2005 @ 1:28 pm
Trendan,
It’s not all that ambitious when compared to presidential candidates and elected presidents before him. The War of 1812 was based on Canada responding to the USA’s expansion into the country. The idea that all of North America (and even the rest of the Americas) should be part of a single country was very popular in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. That’s what “Manifest Destiny” was all about.
Comment by Kim Siever — 3/18/2005 @ 2:20 pm
OK Kim, Joseph Smith wasn’t ambitious then.
Comment by Kim — 3/18/2005 @ 10:07 pm
John:
I’m glad you feel so confident about the numbers of LDS people in the Americas.
The only problem is that the overwhelming majority in Latin America don’t even identify themselves as Mormons, as evidenced by the census data from Mexico and Chile and the count projection from Brazil. Each of those studies shows roughly 22% of those the Church claims chose to call themselves Mormons.
107K for Chile versus the 500K the Church claimed; Mexico a little more than 200K versus the then 900K claimed by the Church, and 170K for Brazil versus the 800K claimed by Salt Lake.
Using those numbers as a base and assuming the self-identification rates are the same across Iberoamerica, we come up with 970K members of the Church in Latin America who consider themselves as such. There are more Mormons in northern Utah than the rest of the hemisphere outside the US.
Links for the stats referenced:
Comment by Ron Hall — 3/20/2005 @ 3:12 pm
Links referenced in the previous post:
Chile
http://www.ine.cl/cd2002/religion.pdf
Brazil
http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2000/populacao/religiao_Censo2000.pdf
Mexico (click on ver cuadro)
http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/librerias/tabulados.asp?tabulado=tab_re01b&c=738
Comment by Ron Hall — 3/20/2005 @ 3:13 pm
De Vere’s point (regardless of how antagonistically it may have been intended toward the church) serves a valuable purpose for us. Too many in the church look to growth numbers as some kind of indication of the truthfulness of the restored gospel. I don’t think the scriptures as a whole support this idea. The scriptures more often point out that many are called but few are chosen; broad is the way that leads to destruction but narrow the gate that leads to eternal life; etc. Spiritual Israel has never been a large percentage of the earth’s population and it never will be. Exaltation is not cheap and most people are not prepared or even desirous to qualify for it while in this mortal probation.
(But we can take solace for all in that facts that eternity is a long time and God is just…)
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 3/20/2005 @ 7:05 pm