Lehi’s affirmation that Jerusalem has been destroyed rests on his vision, the best evidence available given their distance from any possible news sources, although it is possible that they received some word during their years in the wilderness. As long as he had predicted that Jerusalem would be destroyed, Laman and Lemuel could reject it as too vaguely distant to be a real reason for their departure. Lehi quashes that argument. Their original land of inheritance is no more; they must redefine themselves now as residents of the promised land.
Chronology: According to 1 Nephi 17:4, Lehi’s family spent eight years in the wilderness. Randall Spackman has placed their departure from Jerusalem between 587 and 586 B.C. Assuming a year for travel on the ocean, arrival in the New World, and unnamed events, Lehi gave these speeches in approximately 578–575 B.C.(See commentary accompanying 1 Nephi 10:4 for information on how this commentary calculates Nephite years.)
2 Nephi 1:5
5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
Lehi develops his theme, moving from the beginnings of their journey and its justification (Jerusalem’s destruction) to their new world. Lehi emphasizes that it is Yahweh who has brought them to this place. Of course this is not a new concept. Lehi was aware of this promise from at least the time he sent his sons to recover the brass plates (1 Ne. 5:5).
Significantly, Lehi seems aware that they will not be completely alone, for he mentions “all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.” This description certainly applies to the Mulekites in Zarahemla, but the prophecy does not designate where the other countries might be. In the context of this prophecy, Lehi establishes the positive side of the foundational covenant. They have a promised land, and it will be theirs, but not exclusively. It will also belong to others that Yahweh will lead into it. Kevin Christensen, a student of the scriptures, explains this verse as follows:
Notice that from the start, possession of the promised land is not just conditional, as we have seen, but also nonexclusive. Note also that there is no requirement that the “other countries” be located in the Old World.
Before explaining about the covenant for the land, Lehi reminds his children that, besides themselves, the land contains “all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord” (2 Ne. 1:5). This remark comes before any reported contact with the Mulekites or the several indications of Jaredite remnants. Why does Lehi make this point about others being led to the land? He very likely knew about them. Nephi’s vision of the promised land, granted before the ocean voyage, may refer to these others: “And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, even as it were in number as many as the sands of the sea” (1 Ne. 12:1; [emphasis Christensen’s]).
Reading this passage as describing non-Lehite multitudes existing in the New World before the voyage makes Lehi’s remarks about “other nations” (2 Ne. 1:8, 11) in relation to the covenant curse more meaningful. Lehi taught that a law cannot function without an attached punishment (2 Ne. 2:13), and if the “other nations” referred to in the promised land covenant would not arrive until Columbus’s voyage, how would the covenant curse have any immediate significance? It makes sense to suppose that from the beginning Lehi knows that his people are not alone, and he wants his sons to be sobered by the fact. An immediate expectation of other nations on the part of Nephi and Lehi, possibly even interaction with small groups of natives early on (who could signify other nations without representing such), makes the whole story more consistent and meaningful.
These “other countries” are obviously political entities that are coming to the Lehite “land.” The Book of Mormon is consistent in using “land” as a term designating a territory under a particular political entity. It is only an artifact of LDS history that we immediately assume that “other countries” must mean from other continents, or that the “land” Lehi was promised must include at least all of North America, if not the entire hemisphere. That assumption presumes a definition of “land” in the Book of Mormon that is not supported by the text itself.
While many more examples could be examined, a few will serve to demonstrate the nature of the term “land” in the Book of Mormon. When we begin with the references in the familiar Old World, it is obvious that “land” refers to a territory under a particular political domination. When Nephi refers to Moses being led from Egypt, it is from the “land” of Egypt: “And they were also led out of captivity and out of the land of Egypt, by that same God who had preserved them” (1 Ne. 5:15; emphasis mine). In this verse there is no question that we are speaking of a political entity and not the entire African continent.
Similarly, “land” identifies the territory governed by Jerusalem: “For behold, they have rejected the words of the prophets. Wherefore, if my father should dwell in the land after he hath been commanded to flee out of the land, behold, he would also perish. Wherefore, it must needs be that he flee out of the land” (1 Ne. 3:18; emphasis mine). We do not read this verse to suggest that Lehi was required to leave the eastern hemisphere, although he did eventually do just that. In this case, leaving the “land” required only that he leave the area dominated by Jerusalem, something he was able to do in a distance of less than 100 miles.
It is this definition of political dominance that continues to inform the use of “land” in the rest of the Book of Mormon. During Nephi’s lifetime he describes his people’s success: “And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land” (2 Ne. 5:13; emphasis mine). Regardless of how rapidly the Nephite population expanded, Nephi could not be referring to the entire western hemisphere at this point. The limited nature of “land” is further emphasized in Jacob: “But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes; and the Lamanites, which are not filthy like unto you, nevertheless they are cursed with a sore cursing, shall scourge you even unto destruction. And the time speedily cometh, that except ye repent they shall possess the land of your inheritance, and the Lord God will lead away the righteous out from among you” (Jacob 3:3–4; emphasis mine).
By the time of Jacob, the land of the Nephite inheritance is considered separate from the location where the Lamanites are, as the Lamanites threaten to come and possess it. Very clearly, the Lamanites live somewhere, but it is not in the “land” that the Nephites consider their “land of inheritance.” Indeed, this removal from their “land of inheritance” will occur around 200 B.C. when the few righteous Nephites flee to Zarahemla. Even after their relocation to Zarahemla, the concept of “land” remains tied to the current political entity:
And it came to pass that after Mosiah had done as his father had commanded him, and had made a proclamation throughout all the land, that the people gathered themselves together throughout all the land, that they might go up to the temple to hear the words which king Benjamin should speak unto them.
And there were a great number, even so many that they did not number them; for they had multiplied exceedingly and waxed great in the land. (Mosiah 2:1–2; emphasis mine)
The language of this passage certainly intends to emphasize the large number of Nephites. Nevertheless, the very idea that a proclamation is sent to “all the land” and that the people gather from “all the land” to come to one location tells us that this is again a political definition, not a hemispheric one. The Book of Mormon is consistent in defining “land” as a political unit, not as referring to the entire hemisphere. The term “other countries,” used in this verse, should be seen in the same light as the political definition of “land.” Indeed, as the foundational promise is invoked throughout the Book of Mormon, it will be in the context of a conflict with existing neighbors (labeled Lamanites), and not with foreigners from across the ocean.