One of the great things about reading the Book of Mormon text to see what it says (rather than what people say about it) is that it opens up a range of possibilities. An alternative Sunday School lesson I would suggest is one that covers the ranges, and explains where they come from.
To begin with, how many people were in Lehi’s party?
We know that as to Lehi’s family, he is very particular to note that he only brought his nuclear family, not his household. No servants, slaves, grandparents, retainers or others. But when he sends his boys back to seek wives, they bring the entire household with them.
How big was a household?
Abraham’s household included his servants, 318 men raised from their youth strictly for war, herdsmen, family members and others. Two or three thousand people would not be an estimate of his household that is exaggerated, and it was his strength that allowed him to win the battle of the five kings.
Ishmael’s household was probably smaller than that. But the initial range of how many people went into the wilderness with Lehi is somewhere between twenty and three or four hundred.
Next, what was the scope of the broken bow incident? How were they hunting? Slings, bows and spears? Was it a traditional hunt, where beaters drive the game to the “hunters” who slay it as it approaches them? Is the bow a symbol of kingship and rulership or just a bow?
Next, just what happened in the wilderness. Hebrew servants and slaves have a right to their freedom at their seven year anniversary. They spent more than seven years in the wilderness. Is the later complaint about how Nephi made them slaves in the wilderness some hyperbole, or did he insist that if anyone wanted to stay with the group at the seventh year, they had to submit to having their ears pierced and becoming a slave?
When Nephi goes to build a boat unlike any the brothers had ever seen and they withhold their labor, are they just refusing to work or are they withholding the labor of their share of the servants and slaves? Are they just blind to a ship they are working on or are they not personally involved until they walk out to the beach and see it some day?
When they leave for the new world, is the ship carrying a score or so of people or is it carrying several hundred?
When they arrive, do they meet no one, or are their native peoples there?
When Nephi leaves while his brothers are out hunting, taking whosoever is willing to come with him, does he leave with all the servants and slaves or is that just a code phrase for Zoram, Sam and Jacob and their wives and children? Does he take perhaps ten people or does he take three hundred or more? When he makes “many” swords, is he making 3-4 or is he making 40+
When Jacob is dealing with the issue of concubines, does he have a community of 40 or 50 people or does he have one of several hundred embedded in a group of natives of several thousand (whence come the concubines)?
You can look at issues of scale like that throughout the Book of Mormon.
When the Nephites arrive in Zarahemla in the middle of a civil war, and there are many more people there than there are Nephites, is it a migration of thousands or a migration of a few score? What kind of civil war was going on, and how did the Nephites end up in charge?
Are the Nephites a small elite in a much larger polis (remember, when Alma has questions about the Church, he goes to the king who meets with the king’s counsel of priests and then gets back to Alma? Just what is going on there, how are there independent priests who do not answer to Alma as high priest over the Church? — and a counsel of them? Is that a large polis or city or is that just some sort of small counsel of personal advisers?)?
At the last battle, (remembering that the wars among the people that exterminate the Nephites don’t end, the destruction of the Nephites seems like a sideshow to them) are ten thousands measurement numbers or are they names for a military unit (much like a centurion led a century — which just happened to be 40 to 60 men — and was part of a “legion” or a ten thousand man unit — that was between 6000 and 600 men depending on which legion and what time period).
Do they cover an area as large as the Asian steppes or something smaller?
Bringing up the scope of possibilities that are inherent in the text, treating it like an historical work in comparison to other historical works, and then letting people talk about what they think, what they’ve thought, what the possibilities suggest, would make for a wonderful lesson. That is only 10-15 minutes of lecture and hours of conversation.
What possibilities come to mind when you consider the potential scope of the Book of Mormon? Have you ever considered what a history of the Middle Ages written by a Jewish sect would read like, if it focused on Jewish issues vs. a history written by Arabs or one by Visgoths? How does that affect your view of the various stories in the Book of Mormon and what it means for our time? What is the difference if Nephi’s temple was built for 70 people vs being built for a population of 7,000? Think of other stories and the differences that the changes in scope and range might make for them.
What do you think, what would you say in such a lesson?
Wheat & Tares 
steve, I guess I don’t understand your point. we can speculate that the numbers is nephi’s household are 5 or 500, but what purpose would that serve in sunday school?
i’m all for having better lessons in sunday school, but the point of this post escapes me.
I think these are all interesting points. The problem is that they are not answered in the Book of Mormon itself. And when we try to apply archaeological investigations to many things in the Book of Mormon, they seem to all fall flat.
Well, the essence of the wider meaning of the broken bow incident, for example changes with the numbers.
But I think an awareness of the range helps break people out of what they have been told the text means so that they can read it for what it says instead of what someone else told them it says.
The goal is not the specifics in the lesson, but rather that these examples are good ones to get people looking at the text outside of the same old context.
#2: Mike S,
It’s not just “archaeological investigations” of these numbers questions. But it’s becomes a question of “Logistics”.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines logistics as “the branch of military science relating to procuring, maintaining and transporting material, personnel and facilities.”
The BoM does not show how these large armies supplied or moved themselves. That’s a big topic for a SS class.
Bon, did they forage or have supply lines? They act like foraging armies with some supply line characteristics.
I should have addressed theosis and the divine nature. Any other topics you think would have better.
Stephen,
If you would have been critical that the made up book didn’t give the exact number, you would have gotten better response.
Logistics has always been a problem for the Book of Mormon.
Had Lehi traveled with a large group they would have had a much tougher time sustaining themselves on their eastward trek though the Rub’ al Khali. In the desert you want to calculate about four quarts of water per person per day for drinking in order to stay properly hydrated. This does not take in effect water that is needed for food preparation, cleaning or taking care of live stock.
If Lehi was travelling with a large group of people he would have needed hundreds of gallons of water per day. Since the Rub’ al Khali (“the empty quarter”) is a vast desert covering over 250,000 square miles , Lehi and team would have had to been able to sustain themselves for days, maybe weeks without re-supplying water .
Even if you drop their drinking requirements down to two quarts of water per person per day and went with a smaller group of about 50 people that would be a requirement of 100 quarts (25 gallons) of drinking water per day. If they were able to re-supply every four or five days, they would need to be able to carry 100-125 gallons of water as they traveled. Water weighs about 8 pounds per gallon so their drinking water would weigh 800-1000 pounds. Of course they probably would have had camels and would have them carry the bulk of it. That is just drinking water, now think of the food requirement. Of course Nephi did have his homemade bow and arrow made from a straight stick.
Is the later complaint about how Nephi made them slaves in the wilderness some hyperbole…?
I truly do not know what you are talking about regarding slaves. There is no indication, whatsoever, that they had slaves. In fact, Nephite law (given by God through Mosiah) was that they were not to have any slaves among them. Nor do I see where you are saying that Laman and Lemuel complained about being made slaves. What text are you referring to?
Also, many of these questions have the same answer: “Nobody knows.” So, I’m not sure how this would improve discussion, unless passing the time in conjecture and speculation was the objective.
Remlap, I have been in Saudia. Fairly large groups of Bedouin have travelled through it. Realize that is supposed to be impossible, except it is historic fact.
BTW, the top of the escarpment and the empty quarter are not the same thing. You have confused the two.
#8:Remlap,
Very good. Just the kind ponding that I think is fair in considering the problems of Logistics.
Even Lewis and Clark had a hell of a time living off the land with a hand picked group of about 30 men. Small parties (100-250) on the Mormon trail could not live off the land. BY had 47 re-supply stops on the trail.
If you have a large group (hundreds or thousands), you must stay put and grow crops or breed animals.
#10:Stephen M (Ethesis),
I am not sure the Bedouin could have crossed the desert without the camel, their cultue, and knowing where to get water (an oasis)from the water table.
Which is why many assume Lehi’s day job was in trade. The analysis that goes with “and my father dwelt in a tent” connects with that — as an averment that his father was legitimate and not a robber. Every reason to believe he knew what he was doing in the desert.
Stephen M,
I was not saying that it would have been impossible. I was trying to point out that it would have been extremely difficult for them. Remember that Nephi states that they did not light fires so they would not been seen. They were trying to maintain a low profile so they would not necessarily have taken the same routes used by local Bedouin. This would have exacerbated the difficulties of re-supply.
I did not say anything about the top of the escarpment. I was deferring to LDS apologist websites for the route they took and they state that Lehi went through the Empty Quarter. It doesn’t change the requirements for water either way.
The spice trade down the coast was a caravan route. If you get the chance, climb Bell Mountain and look around. It is an easy climb (2-3 minutes if you take your time) but the view is interesting.
Better, travel a bit down the coast and see a traditional building at night. They look as if they are floating in the air as the lower windowless floors appear invisible and the top with lamps and light are almost like lighthouses for visibility.
Gives a great visual for the great and spacious building.
Remlap, the route down the coast is not through the empty sector which is at the top of the escarpment but also on the other side of a low mountain range.
One needs to be careful of raiders and robbers, but many caravans did that.
You both are assuming an Arabian route east, but it may have been an Asian route on the eastern trek.
Logistics IS an important requirement in interpreting the BofM, and it’s even more important in understanding later descriptions of military campaigns and ocean travel to the New World than it is in getting from Jerusalem to the Indian Ocean.
I actually find some of the seemingly strange military maneuvers to be internal strengths of the account. When I first started commenting on Mormon Heretic’s blog some years ago now, our friendship got off to a bad start when I put down one popular geographic theory by noting that if I believed the theory, I’d also have to believe Captain Moroni was a military idiot. Fortunately MH let me explain myself at the time. 😀
I don’t find the Book of Mormon historically accurate enough to speculate on scale of numbers or such.
If we could get a positive frame of reference of where it took place, and what kind of civilizations we’re talking about, then maybe we could start discussing some of these questions.
Without a single point of reference, we’re just stabbing in the dark.
So, it seems better to talk about the philosophical or theological elements in the book, more so than numbers in the family or other speculative matters that can’t be answered.
I find these “unanswerables” very useful and I often bring them into the discussion. For example, I’m always surprised at how many people believe that the Lehites were the only people in the New World. Because the text doesn’t *tell* people things, they often don’t look past what is given. Logistics DO make a huge difference and it places readers into the narrative in meaningful ways to discuss them. We don’t get lost in them, and they don’t teach us doctrine, but the habit of getting into the narrative assists us in finding and applying doctrine, and I think it’s a good habit. Thanks for the thoughts. There were some in there that I haven’t thrown out to the class yet.
One only wishes that Genghis Kahn had been stopped by not being able to live off the land. ;).
But much of it has to do with skills and experience.
#21:Stephen M (Ethesis),
Genghis Kahn lived off the raiding and killing of 40 million people. He eat their food and his horses.
Stephen M,
It is my understanding once Lehi’s party reached Nahom they made an eastward turn in order to get to Bountiful. All the apologists’ maps I have seen show the trail going through the Empty Quarter.
“One only wishes that Genghis Kahn had been stopped by not being able to live off the land. .
But much of it has to do with skills and experience.”
– And the willingness to lay waste to everyone and everything in your path.
LDS Anarchist said
“You both are assuming an Arabian route east, but it may have been an Asian route on the eastern trek.”
Good point.
#23 — I’d love a link. I’m more familiar with them dropping down along the top of the escarpment and down into Yemen as a theory.
Thanks.
“And the willingness to lay waste to everyone and everything in your path.”
Except, of course, there is a lot of transversing the Gobi area that did not require laying waste as it was already a waste.
The eastern expansion was clearly laying waste. The westward expansion included some pretty harsh terrain with few living in it.
cf http://www.saudiembassy.or.jp/En/SA/History.htm
Or see:
http://usyd.academia.edu/ClaireReeler/Papers/513557/The_River_Aftan_an_old_caravan_trade_route_along_Wadi_al-Sahba
For a route closer to what it appears you are talking about.
Bonnie: “Because the text doesn’t *tell* people things, they often don’t look past what is given. ” — that was the point of the suggested lesson, to look past and also to look into the text.
Another fun one. Fleeing the Lamenites, one group of the people of Noah run from slavery with their flocks and herds. They arrive, but at that point the mention of the flocks and herds ceases. It appears that their flocks and herds went one way, they went another …
Which makes a lot more sense as to how those pursuing them lost them.
#26:Stephen Marsh,
Genghis Kahn rode atop his own backup food supply__his horses. If there were no people to raid, he used them like cattle.
Marinate some horse meat under your saddle, and you were set to go…
LDS Anarchist:
I think you’re allowing a long time to walk to China, and not NEARLY enough time to build the boat and provision it with sufficient food to cross the mid-latitude Pacific. (That was the problem with the Jaredites, too, as I’ll link in a post going up in a couple of hours.)
LDS Anarchist:
Sorry, I had to log out for a bit, but I wanted to raise one other point about your China idea. I’m not sure Nephi permits the inference that the Liahona pointing “towards” the promised land implies an unwavering “straight” direction rather than a more generalized “way to go”.
But, for the sake of argument, even if I were to assume that, a straight line on a globe is a great circle, not a continual “east”. In fact, if you want to get from Jerusalem to the New World, traveling to China and then across the center of the Pacific Ocean is about the longest possible route you can imagine.
That is easily seen by viewing the pole-centered map of the globe linked here:
http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=16462
I watched this back when I was a TBM. They are the ones that said that the Lehites went through the Empty Quarter.
http://deseretbook.com/Journey-Faith-Peter-Johnson/i/4955142
FireTag, I’m going to assume you read that entire article, despite its length.
Everyone who reads the Book of Mormon journey to the promised land account always gets “direction” confused with “course.” Course and direction are not the same thing. Course is the path that is taken. Direction is which way they traveled along that path. A straight course on a globe is a loxodromic line. (The course of the Lord is said to be one eternal round, meaning a loxodromic line, turning neither to the right nor to the left.) Alma said that the Liahona, which was patterned after the Lord’s word, took them on a straight course from the time it started pointing to the promised land, meaning on the eastward leg of the journey. Nephi said that on their eastward leg, the direction was nearly eastward from that time forward. We also know that they traveled eight years over land until they got to Bountiful, then spent an unknown amount of time there, built a boat, then traveled over water, and finally arrived in the boat at the promised land.
These facts give us sufficient information to entirely discount the Arabian route, for if they are heading nearly eastward on a loxodromic line (a straight course), going first over land for eight years and then going only over water, then arriving at the promised land, this narrows down the possible courses (paths) they may have taken and completely eliminates the Arabian passage. In fact, the only possible routes are through Asia and China, for only such routes fit all the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon.
To give you further evidence that “straight course” meant a loxodromic line, consider how Mormon used “straight course” in the following scripture:
Now, regarding the length of the journey, there is no indication that they took the shortest path to the promised land. In fact, the record indicates that they traveled a very great distance. So, we shouldn’t assume that “straight course” implies the shortest possible route. Man would take the shortest possible route, but God, whose ways are not our ways, would take the impossible route, so that he could show forth His wonders to the group.
Correction: those weren’t Mormon’s words, but Helaman’s words, in the scripture I quoted.
LDS Anarchist:
“straightest” IS “shortest”. Helaman’s “straight” over a couple of hundred miles (at most) does not have to involve the corrections for the curvature of the globe. You are implying that God’s ways are mysterious. That’s just too easy a way to justify clinging to pet interpretations rather than examining them anew.
I did read your article, and I hope you looked at the map I linked. I’ll prefer the evidence of the map and presume that God doesn’t send people on multi-thousand mile journeys to do things. It would be like presuming He wants people living in a ward in Utah to go to the temple in DC. IMH, you don’t make that presumption without far better evidence than a focus on the word “straight”.
Firetag #35,
Straight does not imply the shortest of all possible routes. It only implies a direct route between two points, without variation to the left or the right.
Here is the Merriam-Webster online entry on straight, and here is the 1828 Webster’s entry on straight.
Notice in particular the 1828 definition, which gives an example of one of its shades (the “not deviating or crooked” shade) as being a “straight course.” This is the same understanding given in the Book of Mormon, for there it is defined as not varying to the left or the right.
Now, in that same shade of meaning is found “passing from one point to another by the nearest course,” but even this does not mean “shortest of all possible routes.” When Lehi’s party went eastward towards the promised land, they did indeed take the “nearest course” for a trip in a nearly eastward direction.
It is true that going west from the point of departure to the point of arrival was shorter in distance than going east, but “nearest course” depends upon the direction traveled, and because the Lord had them going east, they did take the shortest distance eastward to the promised land.
Stephen, I think these questions are critical for members to ask, since I think many of the assumptions about the Book of Mormon are wrong – and it’s only through asking these types of questions that many people will begin to realize the assumptive nature of their views.
LDS Anarchist:
If you will address the map I linked in 31, the straight line “neither deviating to left or right” from YOUR assumed embarkation point to YOUR assumed point of “first landing” is staring you in the face. It goes NORTH along the continental coast of Asia and, while not turning left or right at the pole becomes SOUTH along the west coast of America.
To the contrary, an eastern course of constant latitude on a globe runs equidistantly from the outer boundary of the map (which is itself a boundary of constant latitude). It curves like a corkscrew because a globe’s surface is a CURVED 2-D space.
So you can argue that God told them to travel east for essentially forever, or you can argue that he told them to travel in a straight line forever, but you can’t argue both at the same time.
The simpler explanation — since there are no directional data except “towards” or “back” in the BofM from the time of embarkation for centuries thereafter — is that the “eastward” only applied until they left the Arabian Penninsula, and Nephi (or Mormon) didn’t see any need to include the following travels with any directional detail.
Firetag #38,
I stated in #33: “A straight course on a globe is a loxodromic line. (The course of the Lord is said to be one eternal round, meaning a loxodromic line, turning neither to the right nor to the left.)”
And also, “These facts give us sufficient information to entirely discount the Arabian route, for if they are heading nearly eastward on a loxodromic line (a straight course), going first over land for eight years and then going only over water, then arriving at the promised land, this narrows down the possible courses (paths) they may have taken and completely eliminates the Arabian passage.”
And also, “To give you further evidence that “straight course” meant a loxodromic line, consider how Mormon used “straight course” in the following scripture:”
I’m not sure I can give a better description than this. Perhaps someone else can explain to you what I am talking about better than I can.
One more thing. You stated:
That is not the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that when Nephi states, “and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth” and then he gives no more directional detail from the time they turned “nearly eastward” to the time they arrived at the promised land, it indicates that there was no need for more directional detail because they really “did travel nearly eastward from that time forth,” even as Nephi stated. Your invention of a change of direction for the party when they get to Bountiful and launch in the ship, contradicts Nephi’s claim that he gives in the account “the course of their travels” (First Book of Nephi Heading Summary, written by Nephi.) In other words, Occam’s Razor is that if the account says “we traveled nearly eastward from that time forth,” “we” being the entire group, and the group was together from that point to the point they arrived in the promised land, when they finally split into “us” and “them” (no longer “we”), and as there are no more directions given in the text between those two points, and as the account was to give “the course of their travels,” the simplest answer is that they traveled nearly eastward from point A (Jerusalem area) all the way to point B (the promised land in America.) Again, I’m not sure I can be clearer on this point, so if you still don’t understand me, someone else will need to explain it differently (and perhaps, better) than I have.
Finally, “nearly eastward” does not imply due east. It implies “almost due east.” There are 32 points of the compass rose. Nephi gives south-southeast (SSE) as one direction traveled, so we know that he was capable of giving the eight compass points of NNE, ENE, ESE, SSE, SSW, WSW, WNW, and NNW, as well as the principal eight compass points of N, S, E, W, NE, SE, SW, NW. So, we know for a fact that he at least could give us 16 points of the compass, using the Liahona. Whether the Liahona further divided down to the other 16 points between those points (E by N, E by S, etc.) we don’t know, but we do know that the direction traveled of “nearly eastward” was between ENE and ESE. If the direction was nearer to ENE or ESE than to just E, Nephi would have said, “and we did travel nearled ENE (or ESE) from that time forth.” But he put it at nearly E, so it must have been a direction more eastern than East by North and East by South, which are points on the 32 point compass. And that is as close as an approximation as we can get from the text.
Ray — that is exactly what I was trying to get at. Thank you for seeing it.
LDS Anarchist:
You assume that the phrase in the Scripture “from that time forth” implies “until we reached the promised land”. Yet there are no explicit directional statements in the history for centuries thereafter until they meet up with the people of Zarahemla, and clearly they were not supposed to keep traveling ever eastward for centuries.
In the spirit of the OP, then, you are inferring something about the meaning of the BofM that the BofM DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY rather than interpreting the Book in light of something EXTERNAL to the Book to provide a check on your interpretation.
(I will include your interpretation of “course is one eternal round” scripture as another example of this; I doubt the God who creates an entire universe that seems to run on curved higher dimensional spaces much cares about the definition of a “loxodromic line” on a 2-D globe as a basis of deep theological principles. You’re going to need something EXTERNAL to your interpretation to interest me in that. Of course, the physics of a circular TIME loop might be fun to think about — once someone comes up with a good, testable cosmology incorporating that idea.)
LDS Anarchist:
In fact, Mike S wrote an excellent discussion of the need for this kind of external check on our scriptural interpretations in an earlier series here at W&T:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/11/23/science-religion-6-outside-in-paradigm/
Yeah, this last Sunday was my last for Sunday school. The teacher is a hard core correlationist. My sincere questions are brushed off. The teacher likes to get through all the material without more discussion, more like a lecture really. The manuals skip over the interesting parts. My goodness, we barely even touched the Isaiah writings, which I was really excited about. I could learn more by finding a good book that teaches on the BoM and do my own study than going to class. Not much point in going if any interesting discussions are squelched because they aren’t taught in any of the correlated material. I don’t think myself very knowledgeable in these subjects and going to gospel doctrine doesn’t help at all.
But I agree with Ray, having lots of questions can really broaden the mind.