Steve, the way it actually came out (since I don’t read the lesson as written here — I just write it out to be sure I understand what point I’m trying to make) focused more on the Lamanites than on our European ancestors. There was a room-wide reaction, less in words than in a general intake of breath — but an accepting reaction, a positive reaction — to the idea that while we may have been blessed by our ancestors coming here, that blessing is almost an unintentional byproduct of the real intent, according to this bit in the Book of Mormon. Not that that was the only reason our ancestors came, of course, but there was a recognition that they were sent as a scourge, not as a reward for their own good behavior. It was kind of comical to pick up on the emotional reaction. But there wasn’t any real discussion that I can report here.

The teacher, a nice Japanese woman, looked confused. The same person said, “No, he wasn’t a hockey player!”

(He was just being silly, but I think the underlying point is valid, as the two of you have been discussing.)

N. Eldon Tanner, April 1976: “While in the wilderness Nephi,the son of Lehi, was permitted to see in vision the things that would transpire concerning the destiny of America — the promised land. he said, ‘And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles …’ (1 Ne. 13:12.) this, as we know, refers to Christopher Columbus, who was impelled by the Spirit of God …”

Ezra Taft Benson, April 1952: “Reference has been made by President Young to the coming of Columbus. The scriptures tell us that the Spirit wrought upon Columbus (1 Ne. 13:12), and upon those who followed him …” [which indicates, BTW, that ETB isn't limiting verse 12 to Columbus, although he names him as foremost]

George Albert Smith, October 1943: “Those things were recorded beforehand. Int he Book of Mormon He announced the coming of Columbus, and of the Pilgrim fathers, from the old world, those who came here to worship God (1 Ne. 13:12-13).”

Wilford Woodruff, 1884: “When Columbus was moved upon by the Spirit of God, to cross the ocean to find a new continent …”

George Q. Cannon, 1867: “This land was kept secret until Columbus was moved upon by the Spirit of God, to go forth and penetrate the western ocean.”

And there must be a hundred others. I agree with you that there is an element of assumption, of speculation, in identifying Columbus specifically, but I suppose I more strongly see it as a recognition of Columbus as fitting that verse (hence my inclusion of a couple of statements to suggest that Columbus himself felt he was led by God to the New World) — but he is, I think, symbolic or representational of the whole Age of Exploration that brought Europeans to the New World.

It’s enjoyable to discuss it with you, Todd!

Your commentary about his journals in your original post is what got me thinking that maybe I’m wrong and it is safe to assume that the speculation is most probably correct. Also, I figured (though couldn’t be bothered to research and confirm) that, as you said, “the man in verse 12 has been constantly identified as Columbus in countless sermons and lessons as far back in Church history as I’ve found any discussion of it.”

Oh, and I loved your comments about Zinn. Like him or not, he does tell a story well. I think his purpose of writing that book was to allow the negative stories to be told, since, he would argue, the other side is already given enough attention in our standard history books. The book is popular mainly because it is controversial, which is no mystery really. Speaking for myself, when I was reading that book for the first time, I considered the source, as they say, and didn’t just accept everything as truth.

Zinn’s work is, in my opinion, more polemical than anything the Church has ever produced in the interest of Mormon history. He is an iconoclast, a man who isn’t content to offer an alternate view of history to compete on its own merits, but who is as interested in demolishing other views as in promoting his own. He admits no data that doesn’t support his thesis that Western civilization (the culture that produced Zinn himself, of course) is and always has been vile and corrupt and unworthy of preservation. In other words, anything from any source that suggests wrongdoing on the part of Columbus and his crews is in; anything that suggests the slightest moral merit on their part is out. I don’t understand why the book is so popular, except that he does tell a story well, and there’s a rebel streak in almost everyone, I suppose, that likes to see the world turned upside down occasionally. Just don’t take everything you read there, about Columbus or anything else, as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But as for your main point, I agree with you that the scripture is general enough not to be identified solely with Columbus. However, I think there is nothing wrong with class members immediately identifying the figure as Columbus, because I’m sure he was included, and there’s the authority of immeasurable precedent behind them.

In my ward’s class, I was called on to read verse 12. The teacher then asked me who the verse was referring to. I knew that Columbus was the answer he was looking for, but I responded with a general answer like, “one of the initial colonizers of the American continent,” or something like that. Someone who was sitting near me was then very quick to blurt out, “Christopher Columbus!”

My point in not volunteering the obvious answer was that neither the text nor the manual mentions the name of this inspired man. Doesn’t that make it pure speculation? Your post leads me to believe that you are also convinced that this speculation is probably accurate. What about all of the terrible things that some people are now attributing to Columbus, like raping, terrorizing, and slaughtering the native inhabitants? Is that something someone would do after being inspired by the Holy Ghost to find them?

Now, I admit that most of what I’ve read about the negative aspects of Columbus’ discovery of America comes from Zinn’s People’s History, which most Mormons have either never heard of or think of with nothing but contempt. Again, my main thought was, why speculate? The manual doesn’t speculate, so if there was no harm done in the curriculum department’s decision, certainly there would be no harm in following the same strategy in class.