Historical: Mormon makes the statement that “the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites.” This process takes a very localized population around Bountiful that has had experience with the visit of the
Atoning Messiah, and indicates that form that small base “the people were all converted” within only two years.
Certainly it would be impossible for any missionary effort to convert an entire hemisphere full of people in only two years. It would take longer than that to walk from Mesoamerica to the most remote locations of northeast North America. Clearly there is some kind of limitation placed on “all the face of the land.” We know that it could not have been a hemispheric definition, but how far did “all the land” extend?
The Book of Mormon has been consistent in describing the “land” in a limited sense, one bounded by the gross dimensions we understand as Mesoamerica at the largest, and even more specifically to some area outside of the “land of Zarahemla.”
Mormon has used such inclusive language before when he really means a smaller geographic area:
Helaman 11:17-20
17 And it came to pass that in the seventy and sixth year the Lord did turn away his anger from the people, and caused that rain should fall upon the earth, insomuch that it did bring forth her fruit in the season of her fruit. And it came to pass that it did bring forth her grain in the season of her grain.
18 And behold, the people did rejoice and glorify God, and the whole face of the land was filled with rejoicing; and they did no more seek to destroy Nephi, but they did esteem him as a great prophet, and a man of God, having great power and authority given unto him from God.
19 And behold, Lehi, his brother, was not a whit behind him as to things pertaining to righteousness.
20 And thus it did come to pass that the people of Nephi began to prosper again in the land, and began to build up their waste places, and began to multiply and spread, even until they did cover the whole face of the land, both on the northward and on the southward, from the sea west to the sea east.
The parallel between the situation in Helaman and the one in the current chapter may not be a coincidence. In both Helaman and 4 Nephi Mormon describes the reaction of the people to a miraculous occurrence, though admittedly the appearance of the Savior was a miracle of a higher order than the falling of rain to end a drought. Regardless of the miraculous magnitude, the description of the result is similar. In both cases there is a seemingly universal conversion to righteousness, and a reference made to the righteous people extending over “all the face of the land” in 4 Nephi, and “the whole face of the land” in Helaman.
The parallel is important not only because of the conversion to righteousness and the spreading of the righteous across of the face of the land. It is important because each of these occasions is limited it both geographic space and in time. “All the people” simply means all those in the land, and “the land” is the small geographic area that has traditionally been associated with the Nephites when they were centered in Zarahemla. In addition to the limitation in space, both of these incidents is limited in time. The one in Helaman lasts only three years (see Helaman 11:17-23). In 4 Nephi the peace will last a little longer, some one hundred and seventy years (see verse 24 below). Although one hundred and seventy years is obviously a long time, it is nevertheless temporary, and it will be that very temporary nature that becomes part of the important structural aspect of 4 Nephi. Mormon intentionally will create an antithetical parallel to this time of peace.
One possibility that should be examined is whether or not we should expect the archaeology of the region to demonstrate this universal conversion. There is no indication of a widespread alteration of religion in Mesoamerica until around 200-300 AD when Central Mexican religions appear to intrude on the Maya region. Does this indicate that a change did not take place? No. The problem with archaeology is that is sees a change in religion as a change in the artistic representations of religion. Archaeologically, evidence for a new religion comes when there is a change in the iconography used at a location. When that iconography has a sudden shift to a new set of deity-representations, it is presumed that a religious change has taken place. When there are no contemporary documents, visual changes is all that can signal such a change.
In this case, we would actually expect very little visual change. While there is a conversion over all of the land, it is a restricted area, and an area previously under the control of the Nephite. There are Lamanites in the land who are converted, but they are minorities in a majority population that continued the Nephite culture from before the destruction to after the visit of the Messiah. Now that he had come, their current tradition was justified, not altered. The coming of the predicted Messiah provided no impetus to massive iconographic change, for the understanding of the God did not appreciably change. Therefore, we would not expect a major alteration in the iconographic elements.
One of the problems the Book of Mormon faces as it relates to the archaeological remains is that those remains do not appear to be “Christian.” They don’t even appear to be Jewish. How could the Book of Mormon have taken place in these areas without the establishment of a new iconographic tradition?
The answer lies in the nature of iconographic adoption. When a new religion enters a larger culture with established iconographic forms, the earliest iconographic representations of the new religion may be adopted from the forms already prevalent. This was certainly the case in the Old World as Christianity developed among the pagan cities:
“The tangible record gives the same impression of shared territory. For example, among the grave-goods of large Roman Egypt, very much the same things are found whether the burial be Christian or not. In a Pannonian grave was placed a box ornamented with a relief of the gods, Orpheus in the center, Sol and Luna in the corners, but the Chi-Rho as well; elsewhere, in Danube burials, similar random mixtures of symbolism appear, with gods and busts of Saint Peter and Saint Paul all in the same bas-relief. The Romans who bought cheap little baked clay oil-lamps from te shop of Annius Serapiodorus in the capital apparently didn’t care whether he put the Good Shepherd or Bacchus or both together on his produces; and the rich patrons of mosaicists in Gaul, North Africa, and Syria were similarly casual about the very confused symbolism they commissioned or their floors.” (Ramsay MacMullen. Christianizing the Roman Empire. Yale University Press. New Haven. 1984. p. 78.).
The old mixed in with some of the new. There are two issues. The first is that the symbols were not conceptually segregated, and much of the old artistic conventions continued in the new religion. The second is that there are many of the new Christian symbols that we recognize as Christian symbols only because of long tradition or written documents. Failing those references, a new symbol might be Christian, and we might not know it. For instance, Peter is typically depicted with an iron key. This is certainly a common enough object, but only our understanding of Christian history tells us that this is not a physical key, but a symbol of the heavenly keys given to Peter. In another context, modern Christians are quite familiar with the Christmas tree, but forget that it has its symbolic origins in pagan cults and was simply adopted in Christianity.
The Nephites world had adopted the symbol system of the world that it was in, but doubtless transmuted some of the symbols just as we have the Christmas tree and the Easter bunny. Those symbols had existed before, and continued after the visit of the Savior. Therefore, we should expect no iconographic changes due to this event.