2 Nephi 10: 11 - 12

[askandanswer]

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 10:11)

11  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.

12 And I will fortify this land against all other nations.

 

I’m having trouble understanding these two verses. I think that French, English, and Spanish kings have reigned over parts of the land that Nephi is referring to here, and maybe even Portuguese kings, for more than two centuries in some places. And every time there has been a war between two nations on the North and South American continents, eg, Mexico v US, or the 1812 American/Canadian war, one nation has won, and another has lost, thereby suggesting that the nation which lost was unfortified against the attacking nation. So what does Nephi mean when he says there will be no kings upon the land, and that it will be fortified against other nations?

 

[pam]

My understanding is that it is referring to  America.  We've never had a king nor will we ever.

 

And we've always learned that this country will be fortified against other nations as a promised land.

[Crypto]

Like most blessings this is also likely predicated on people following Gods will. 

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I believe when JACOB (thanks Pam) writes "this land" he is referring to the land he presently occupies.  I know there are a truckload of BYU professors who will argue otherwise, but like Pam said, he was referring to America. I’ll go even farther and say the land he occupied is what we presently call the continental United States.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Capitalist_Oinker

[askandanswer]

My understanding is that it is referring to  America.  We've never had a king nor will we ever.

 

And we've always learned that this country will be fortified against other nations as a promised land.

 

I've always thought that Nephi was somewhere around Central America when he made this prophecy, so when he talks about "this land" I thought that's the area he would have been referring to. The land that now comprises America probably came under the jurisdiction of the Spanish king after it was discovered by Columbus, and then later the English king up until the time of the American revolution and those parts of North America that now make up Canada still came under the jurisdiction of the King or Queen of England until relatively recently. Even after the American revolution and prior to the Louisiana purchase, much of the territory would have come under French jurisdiction and what is now Texas and California would have been under the jurisdiction of the Spanish king up until the Mexican war of Independence. So much of what is now the United States, which may or may not have been the area that Nephi was referring to, has at various times, been under the jurisdiction of a king. And the capture and burning of Washington by the British in 1814 does not fit well with the idea that America was fortified against all other nations. So I'm still puzzled.

[pam]

2 Ne 10:11 there shall be no kings upon the land

"It is remarkable that so few attempts have been made to establish thrones in America. Perhaps the most substantial barrier has been the Monroe Doctrine, although, there has, for the most part, been so little real force behind that 'doctrine' that its very weakness has invited more than one European monarch to attempt to 'smash it.' It defied all the world to attempt to set up any authority of their own, or to interfere with any of the independent governments then existing in North or South America....In a word the real meaning of the Monroe Doctrine is, 'Hands off' and that too, to all the world....One could imagine that the Book of Mormon prophet might have been standing at the elbow of President Monroe when he signed the document as it was handed to him by the Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. For the Monroe Doctrine is nothing more than the Book of Mormon prophecy put in the form of a state paper. It has been tested and tried. It has been called the 'most magnificent bluff in history, and so far the most successful.' At any rate, it has stood. It has been affirmed and re-affirmed by President after President until it is now upheld and proclaimed as with the voice of a hundred millions of people." (Nephi Lowell Morris, Prophecies of Joseph Smith and Their Fulfillment, pp. 136-138 as taken from Latter-day Commentary on the Book of Mormon compiled by K. Douglas Bassett, p. 125)

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I've always thought that Nephi was somewhere around Central America when he made this prophecy, so when he talks about "this land" I thought that's the area he would have been referring to. The land that now comprises America probably came under the jurisdiction of the Spanish king after it was discovered by Columbus, and then later the English king up until the time of the American revolution and those parts of North America that now make up Canada still came under the jurisdiction of the King or Queen of England until relatively recently. Even after the American revolution and prior to the Louisiana purchase, much of the territory would have come under French jurisdiction and what is now Texas and California would have been under the jurisdiction of the Spanish king up until the Mexican war of Independence. So much of what is now the United States, which may or may not have been the area that Nephi was referring to, has at various times, been under the jurisdiction of a king. And the capture and burning of Washington by the British in 1814 does not fit well with the idea that America was fortified against all other nations. So I'm still puzzled.

 

 

I would argue that a few skirmishes within our borders do not nullify the phrase "fortify the land against all other nations." All attempts by foreign nations to subjugate America have been successfully repulsed, thus I think the Lord has certainly fortified this land against all other nations.

 

As to Kings, I think the qualifying words "who shall raise up unto the Gentiles" should be considered. None of the Kings you mentioned were "raised up unto the Gentiles". 

 

I read the verse like this:

"And this land shall be a land of liberty" [upon adoption of the Constitution] "unto the Gentiles" [and once it becomes such] "there shall be no kings upon the land" [by conquest] OR "who shall [be] raised up" [indigenous] "unto the Gentiles."

 

I'll admit, however, that the last line is being severely tested by our current POTUS. 

[pam]

Read what it says in the header for this chapter:

 

Chapter 10

Jacob explains that the Jews will crucify their God—They will be scattered until they begin to believe in Him—America will be a land of liberty where no king will rule—Reconcile yourselves to God and gain salvation through His grace. About 559–545 B.C.

 

 

Also keep in mind this isn't Nephi speaking.  It is Jacob speaking.

[skalenfehl]

Lehi's posterity spread throughout both the northern, central and no doubt, southern Americas. When Nephi beheld a man being filled by the spirit, I believe it was Columbus. The gentiles, which swept off his people began as the Spanish Gentiles, then later the English Gentiles, who escaped captivity from the "mother" gentiles. Ultimately, I believe that Nephi is referring to the United States, which is still free of kings. But this promise is only good so long as the people serve the Lord. My two cents.

[askandanswer]

The way I’m reading this, it seems that in order to make this scripture fit with historical facts, that we need to make a few important assumptions: one, that it refers to a very specific, but unspecified place – maybe the continental United States, maybe the land where Jacob was when he made this prophesy, maybe the American continent as a whole –  second, that it refers to a very specific, but unspecified time – maybe after 1492, maybe after 1776, maybe after the adoption of the Constitution, maybe after Washington was destroyed by the British, maybe after the signing of the Monroe Doctrine, maybe after the last Queen of Hawaii resigned in about 1893, and third, that it is only referring to kings who emerge from the existing population of the US, rather than any of the kings that have reigned over various parts of the Americas at various times.

 

It may well be that it is right and proper to make assumptions when trying to understand prophecy although there does seem to be some risks associated with that approach. If these are the assumptions that we have to make in order to properly understand what 2 Nephi 10: 11-12 means, do we then have to consider that there might be other assumptions underlying other prophecies that need to be identified before we can start to properly understand what these other prophecies mean?

 

The statement that “there shall be no kings upon the land” seems to ignore the fact that both before and after 1776 there have been many kings on various parts of the land. 

[Capitalist_Oinker]

It may well be that it is right and proper to make assumptions when trying to understand prophecy although there does seem to be some risks associated with that approach. If these are the assumptions that we have to make in order to properly understand what 2 Nephi 10: 11-12 means, do we then have to consider that there might be other assumptions underlying other prophecies that need to be identified before we can start to properly understand what these other prophecies mean?

 

 

I was going to make a comment on this awhile back but I had another bout of dementia and entirely forgot. At the risk of wishing I had forgotten permanently, here goes...

 

I believe the only foolproof way to interpret prophecy  is to have the meaning revealed by the same individual who revealed it in the first place. 

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

 

Absent direct revelation from the Holy Ghost, we have little recourse but to make assumptions. 

However, if we're going to make assumptions it would be wise to make them based upon other scriptures and teachings of the prophets and apostles.

 

For instance, let's consider a prophecy in John 14: 13-14. 

"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do…if ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

 

Think of the possibilities here! 

Money! 

Fame! 

Instant healing from all illness and pain! 

Instant karma for the guy who just cut you off in traffic. 

All we have to do is ask for something in Jesus' name, and Ta Daaa… He will do it!

Of course we "assume" this isn't what Jesus meant, but only because our assumption is based upon other scriptures and the teachings of prophets and apostles.

 

Other than those two things we can also make assumptions based upon what we "know" of history.

As the prophet Nephi wrote regarding Isaiah's prophecies: "… in the days that the prophecies of Isaiah shall be fulfilled men shall know of a surety, at the times when they come to pass.”

“… for in that day shall they understand them.” (2 Nephi 25 7-8)

 

I propose that in order to understand any particular prophecy, you must first believe that it’s true! 

Of course those who hang their hats on the "scientific method" would have their lattes come out their noses at such a claim, but then they would reject the notion of "prophecy" anyway. (And yes I know the "scientific method" is just an idiomatic expression, but humor me for now).

 

If we begin with the underlying assumption that a prophecy is true, we can then attempt to place it in context with "known" history. 

 

For example.

When the prophet Alma spoke to the people in Gideon he prophesied that the Son of God would be born "at Jerusalem". 

If we were trying to determine who this "Son of God" was based upon this prophecy, we would reject Christ because He was born in Bethlehem rather than Jerusalem. 

But if we begin with a firm belief that Christ is the Son of God, and that this prophecy is true, then we can reconcile the words "at Jerusalem" by assuming that Alma was including the city of Bethlehem in his qualifying phrase "which is the LAND of our forefathers".

 

So let's consider Jacob's prophecy and declare that it's true.

Therefore if it's true, what land most closely complies with the stipulations that it would be "a land of liberty unto the Gentiles", that there would be "no kings upon the land", and that the land would be "fortified against all other nations."

 

I think the answer to that question is obvious. We may have to make a few assumptions (as I did in my previous post), but absent direct revelation from the Holy Ghost that's all we can do unless we refuse to accept the prophecy as being true in the first place.

 

Just for a closing thought (I know, it’s way past due) regarding something you wrote:

“I've always thought that Nephi was somewhere around Central America when he made this prophecy, so when he talks about "this land" I thought that's the area he would have been referring to.”

 

There are at least a dozen references to the "promised land" in the BOM. 

“…they cross the large waters into the promised land”

“…Seed of my brethren who were in the promised land”

“…they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land”

“…we have obtained a land of promise”

“…when they arrived in the promised land”

“…I could have joyed with him in the promised land”

Etc.

There is simply no question that Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, and others considered the land they occupied to be the "promised land".

 

In the Dec. 2012 Ensign there is a copy of a devotional address delivered on January 24, 2012, at Brigham Young University–Idaho by L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve.

In that address he said this: "The United States is the promised land foretold in the Book of Mormon"

 

I believe we are on shaky ground if we assume that claim to be just "his opinion".

[askandanswer]

Thank you oinker, I like the idea of starting with the proposition that the prophecy is true and then looking around to see which particular set of facts comes closest to matching the prophecy. I recognise the problem you have pointed out that this method might not work so well for those who prefer the scientific method, but I like to think of myself as a believer first. I also like the quote from Elder Perry - very direct and to the point. 

[askandanswer]

It does not say that the land is currently fortified, it states that someday in the future it "will" be. 

 

 

I think that the future tense - will be - is the correct tense, given that the prophecy was made about 2,500 years ago.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

hanging by a thread...

 

"And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of [the Founding fathers], or that which the Lord commanded [them] to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted, and that they had become a wicked people..." Helaman 4:22

 

...and the thread is severely frayed. 

[Pahoranite]

 

Read what it says in the header for this chapter:

 

Chapter 10

Jacob explains that the Jews will crucify their God—They will be scattered until they begin to believe in Him—America will be a land of liberty where no king will rule—Reconcile yourselves to God and gain salvation through His grace. About 559–545 B.C.

 

Just a reminder, the chapter headings are not scripture, nor doctrine.

[Blackmarch]

 

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 10:11)

11  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.

12 And I will fortify this land against all other nations.

 

I’m having trouble understanding these two verses. I think that French, English, and Spanish kings have reigned over parts of the land that Nephi is referring to here, and maybe even Portuguese kings, for more than two centuries in some places. And every time there has been a war between two nations on the North and South American continents, eg, Mexico v US, or the 1812 American/Canadian war, one nation has won, and another has lost, thereby suggesting that the nation which lost was unfortified against the attacking nation. So what does Nephi mean when he says there will be no kings upon the land, and that it will be fortified against other nations?

 

part of the condition is it being a land of liberty. The lands which have been at liberty have not had a king over them.

it also says to me that if there ever does come a time where it becomes kinged, then events will happen that will remove the king.... if events with the nephites are in any likeness to what has been prophesied that will be given the gentiles then it will by war and strife.

Fortified will mean to keep its lands from being conquered by other nations.. and so far the US has not been forced to give up any lands previously owned by another government.

[rustyutah]

I think 2 Nephi 1:8-9 adds some light on the subject:

"And they shall be kept from all other nations,
that they may possess this land unto themselves.
And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments,"