and some other issues
also
Book of
Mormon geography location theorizing has become enough of an issue among
scholars and laymen alike, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
issued a formal Gospel Topic essay stating a neutral position. The pertinent
sentences read: “the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of
Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.” And, “The Church does not
take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events
in the ancient Americas.” When I first read the entire statement, and the
quoted sentences in particular, I thought it very wise, to the point of
inspired.
In me this
statement accomplishes some valuable and necessary objectives. 1) It should
hopefully reduce argument among well-meaning members who often heatedly debate
the subject into the realm of contention. 2) It avoids sticking a pin in a map.
3) It relieves the Restored Church of Jesus Christ of the burden of taking a
position on something that may well not have been revealed to present or past prophets,
beyond that stated in JS—H 1:34 (quoted below).
It should
be self-evident that contention is of the devil. One hopes that all theorists
will see the wisdom in reducing heated debate. No one should be foolish enough
to attach their testimony to unrevealed geography. Testimony comes from the
Spirit of the Lord, not from science (a sandy foundation). In Lehi’s dream, the
rod of iron we must cling to is identified as a symbol of the “word of God,”
not the word of scholarship, history, or science (see 1 Nephi 11:25). God does
not ask church members to become archaeologists or anthropologists of the early
Americas.[1]
A wonderful
thing about not designating a narrowly definable geographic location is to avoid
giving the devil’s mortal emissaries a spot to target as well. The Prophet
Joseph Smith said Moroni told him that there “was a book deposited, written
upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this
continent” (JS—H 1:34; italics added).[2]
Instead of being able to concentrate all their disparate resources and ire on
one piece of real estate, they have to examine and attempt to refute everywhere
in all the Americas; a much less effective pursuit. Whatever and wherever they
argue against, they could always be focusing on the wrong spot, and therefore be
irrelevant.[3]
As to
taking a position on the location of Book of Mormon geography, various church
leaders and members have given their views. As I have occasionally studied the
statements of general authorities given over many decades, I personally have
concluded that most of them leaned toward some version of what is today labelled
the “hemispheric” model—meaning that it was generally thought that the Lehites
(and Jaredites) landed somewhere near Central America, from which they
eventually spread enough to populate, in some unknown measure, much of North
and South America, including upstate New York.[4]
Joseph
Fielding Smith was one who believed the hemispheric model, as did many others
of his day. I think Elder Harold B. Lee also favored this model. Speaking to
Church Educational System personnel, he said: “Some say the Hill Cumorah was in
southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western
New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla
was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother
our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical
locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?”[5]
I interpret
this statement as President Lee viewing the Hill Cumorah being located in New
York, and not being pleased with some voices that “pushed it down” to southern
Mexico or Central America. I have seen where many others have interpreted this
statement otherwise, which surprised me. Either way, it is not definitive,
whereas the Gospel Topic essay is. The counsel not “to bother our heads” is
sound and the new essay echoes it wisely.
Elder Bruce
R. McConkie believed the hemispheric model, with the one and only Hill Cumorah
located in upstate New York (see Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed, 175),
and he put President Smith’s strong expressions to that effect in his
compilation Doctrines of Salvation (see vol. 3:232-41). I should point
out however, that when Church Correlation reviewed Doctrines of Salvation
for a special church-published and approved edition in 2001 (as Selections
from Doctrines of Salvation), the volume did not include President Smith’s statements
relative to Book of Mormon geography. This was done quietly, and has largely
gone unnoticed, but the fact that it happened is very telling and aligns with
the new essay.
Another such
instance was shared by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who explained how (as a BYU
student taking a class on supposed Book of Mormon geography) he was surprised:
“I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all
of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in
all ages of the earth. Up to that time I had assumed that it was.”
How many
earlier church leaders had “assumed” themselves, or had actively thought about
theories of geographic locations is unknowable. Be all of this as it may, we
can state nothing for sure about prophetically revealed knowledge. We have the
recorded statements that we have from Church leaders who have talked or written
on the subject, and various theorists interpret them how they do—but they are,
as per the Gospel Topics essay and other expressions by Church leaders, not
authoritative nor binding.
We do not know and cannot say whether some
church authority or member has ever received a personal revelation informing
them of locations of Book of Mormon events. Anything claimed by a regular
member would not be binding on members of the Church. Certainly, if President Russell
M. Nelson knows, or any of his predecessors (or current colleagues) had this
knowledge revealed to them, they have not shared it. Instead they have
authorized publication of an essay stating complete neutrality (as quoted
above). It is possible that they possess such information but choose to
withhold it from a wicked and contentious world.
Elder Boyd
K. Packer taught: “There are many things that the Brethren know, individually
and collectively, that they just do not talk about, and there are many
scriptures which sustain them in this silence.”[6]
The prophets know “many things” that they are constrained from revealing. I
bring this concept up because it is a major point I seek to make. We cannot say
whether a modern prophet has had Book of Mormon locations revealed to him (though
some would argue about the Prophet Joseph Smith, a question beyond my scope).
These
points might be taken into serious consideration by strongly opinionated
theorists, lest they one day be proven wrong by revelation. A recent example
makes my point. Interpreter, a fine online journal that examines
Latter-day Saint scripture, has posted on their blog a lengthy negative review
of a newer publication called The Annotated Edition of the Book of
Mormon (really a new Book of Mormon commentary). This book pushes the
“heartland” geographical model, meaning the eastern half of the United States
and into Canada. The reviewer, Stephen Smoot (and friends), uses modern
scholarship and scientific findings to aggressively refute many of the book’s heartland
theory claims. I am in no position to judge the accuracy of Smoot’s scholarship
but presume it reasonably solid for what that is worth—and his broad findings
and conclusions could well be correct.
But this
very use of changeable scientific findings and often-corrected historical scholarship
places a glaring issue before us. Critics (enemies of the Church) supposedly use
the same scientific sources and scholarship and findings and authorities to attempt
to prove the Book of Mormon false (in any and every location). In other words, the
general body of scientific literature Smoot uses to refute the heartland theory
(or the evidently incompetent use of modern science made by these heartland
theorists),[7]
is also supposedly used by critics to attempt to refute all the geography theories
(including Mesoamerica). Critics claim to open scientific and historical texts
and draw on scientific authorities to attempt to refute everything Book of
Mormon-related (wherever located).[8]
Someday,
probably in the Millennium or the Spirit World, we will be given revealed
knowledge of Book of Mormon geography and so very much more, and Smoot will
either be proven right or wrong, as will the heartland theorists. If Smoot and
his like-minded friends are proven wrong by revelation, then their review will
look foolish (whether either parties’ science was sound and accurate or not).
One reason why will be because he used incomplete and changeable historical science
to make his case, the same historical science the critics supposedly use. If Smoot
is proven right on that far future day, I guess that will be nice, but was it
worth it to use the arm of flesh (arrogant
but very incomplete and changing historical science) as a determiner? For
that matter, is it worth it to use the arm of flesh to attempt to strengthen
the Mesoamerican model if it is wrong? Just some rhetorical thoughts to
consider for inflexible theorists, but which I now extend to other issues as
well.
Several
years ago I tried writing a paper, meant to be delivered at a symposium, on the
subject of how much Alma knew about the timing of the resurrections. I thought
this an interesting question to explore because of his unique scriptural use of
the word “opinion” (see Alma 40), and what some strong doctrinal authorities
had written about it. I first titled it “Alma’s Opinion on the Resurrection”
but soon found that the subject might be better phrased as “what did Book of
Mormon prophets know about the resurrection: timing, degrees, etc.” I did some preliminary
research and began an outline, but soon realized I couldn’t get very far.
There is,
again, the same glaring problem that I have associated with Book of Mormon
geography: The Book of Mormon is an abridgement; it is a prophetically edited and
drastically reduced text that does not tell us so very many things. Vast
quantities of information were left out by the abridgers. This means that only
bits and pieces of data about geography, and language, and temple work, and
exactly how the Nephites practiced the law of Moses, and what Jaradite and
Nephite prophets knew about the resurrection (and a thousand other gospel and
scientific subjects) were left out or given passing and slight notice and therefore
cannot be stated with certainty.
We have an abridged book that doesn’t tell us
most things. The wording in the book itself, used a number of times, is that “a
hundredth part” cannot be written (see Helaman 3:14; 3 Nephi 26:6-7; Jacob 3:13;
3 Nephi 5:8; Ether 15:33, and especially Words of Mormon 1:5). If we had
translations of all the sets of plates once stored by Mormon in the Hill Cumorah,
we would surely have far more geographic information; surely we would know far
more about the extent (or lack thereof) of population migrations and the
changes to the face of the earth that preceded the resurrected Christ’s visit
to Bountiful.
Would
having those piles of other records translated and available today make it
possible to put a pin in the map? Or to better correlate (true) modern
scientific findings with described cities and transportation and wars? I speculate
that such a flood of new information could very well provide us a map we could
impose on someplace in North, South, and/or Central America today, whether some
locations had sunk into the ocean or turned into a mountain range or not. But
the fact is we cannot say for we do not know.
When you
are working with less than a hundredth part, probably much less, of the
original records, than you are suffering from a severe lack of data in
historical and scientific matters. This makes sound conclusions on those kinds
of less-important matters elusive. The Church
statement did say that “This history contains information about the places
they lived, including descriptions of landforms, natural features, and the
distances and cardinal directions between important points. The internal
consistency of these descriptions is one of the striking features of the Book
of Mormon.” Yet there is not much more that can be said because of the lack of
data.
An example of
a difficulty this issue presents comes from the book of Alma. In chapter 12,
Alma explained to the wicked Ammonihahites that he was teaching, that “It is
given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under
a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of
his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed
and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his
heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word” (Alma 12:9-10). This
is fairly standard and understood among students of the gospel—you don’t give
the mysteries to unbelievers because they will mock and ridicule them (you
don’t cast pearls before swine). Yet the very next thing that Alma does (in
Alma 13:1-9) is launch into a deep doctrinal explanation of high priests being
ordained to the high priesthood in the pre-mortal existence—supposedly going
contrary to his own previously given teachings. This seems odd; why would Alma give
pearls to these hard-hearted and wicked people after counseling differently?
A likely answer
is that we are reading an abridgement that leaves out most details of time and
place and context and audience in this instance as elsewhere. Elder
Packer gave us a fuller picture: “In the Book of Mormon, the thirteenth
chapter of Alma contains many treasures. No doubt the counsel was given in a priesthood
meeting because Alma used the salutation ‘my brethren’ more than once.” If we
accept this apostolic explanation (and Elder Packer was meticulous about only
teaching ideas he believed to be true) we learn that Alma was not (during the
deep doctrine portions) preaching to wicked Ammonihahites, but to faithful
priesthood holders in a priesthood meeting. They needed to know this gospel
principle because they were surrounded by wickedness (as we are today) and
needed to be careful.
This is the
kind of issue that hinders understanding of so many peripheral matters
related to the Book of Mormon. A question: did any of the Nephite or Jaredite
prophets know about the three degrees of glory in the resurrection as later revealed
to the Prophet Joseph Smith (see D&C 76, 88, 131)? Answer: it is highly
probable that some of them (and at least one) did, but we don’t know for sure. We
know the same gospel is revealed, to some extent, in all dispensations. We know
Lehi and Nephi saw great visions of the eternities, but only a tiny portion of
what they saw has come to us. We suppose that Alma did not know more about the
resurrection than what he told his son Corianton, because he had to give an
opinion on the timing of the resurrection, and therefore would seem to have
lacked fuller knowledge (see Alma 40:16-26).
Did the later
Nephi’s know?—they had great revelations and visitations and manifestations—yet
while entirely possible, we cannot say. Did the Nephites and Lamanites have
this knowledge during their golden era after the visit of the resurrected
Savior to them? I think it virtually certain they did. The reason is because of
the Brother of Jared.
Moroni
noted: “I have written upon these plates the very things which the brother of
Jared saw; and there never were greater things made manifest than those which
were made manifest unto the brother of Jared.” If I interpret this passage
correctly, for the entire history of the world and prophetic revelation to the
time of Moroni, no one—not Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, or any previous (to
Moroni) Lehite prophet—had greater doctrines and spiritual knowledge revealed
to them than had the Brother of Jared. Considering the greatness and revelatory
insight of these dispensation heads, I think it virtually certain that they
knew all about the resurrection, including its timings and its various degrees
or types of glorified bodies. The Brother of Jared had revealed to him
everything these past prophets had and more. How could it be otherwise than
that the Brother of Jared knew of the degrees of glory in resurrected bodies,
and therefore that the Nephites in their golden era knew also, for they were
privileged to have the Brother of Jared’s unequaled record (see Ether 4:1-2).
Outside of
these kinds of reasonings and deductions, we can say very little about what the
Nephite prophets knew individually and collectively. Their doctrinal knowledge
would depend on two things: their own personal receipt of revelation, and, their
access to the records of the revelations of their prophetic predecessors. One
might imagine that if (1st) Nephi knew of the degrees of glory, from his own visions,
that Alma would have had access to his account on the plates in his possession
and would have also known. But there are too many unknown factors: if something
like what is contained in D&C 88, where resurrection timing is set forth, was
made known to Nephi, would he have written down all he saw or just what he was
commanded to? This would affect what Alma could later read. And how much did
Alma study these piles of plates that had come to him? The questions are many
and the answers few, without further data. It becomes increasingly problematic
to make deductions concerning these things, for so very much was withheld from
our current Book of Mormon.
The
conclusion is inescapable: for many peripheral issues and questions, a
few of which we have reviewed, but others as well, we cannot give definitive
answers because we are working from a highly condensed, abridged, and edited
book. For many other central doctrines and gospel principles—like the divine
Sonship of Christ and His role as the resurrected Savior of the world—the Book
of Mormon contains complete and powerful data and abundantly rich information.
That He is the resurrected, living, Jesus the Christ, cannot be disputed from
the contents of this abridged book. Where it all took place remains disputable,
as do other matters.
[1]
To clarify, we have revelations that tell us to become educated and informed
about many things the best we can (see D&C 109:7, 14; 88:79), but on the
other hand we must not suppose we are all to become scientists or historians of
ancient American cultures in order to make an informed decision as to whether
the Book of Mormon is a true, authentic, inspired, and historical record. Quite
the opposite; we are told that when the prophet Mormon wanted to include extra
impermissible information in his abridgement, “the Lord forbade it, saying: I
will try the faith of my people” (3 Nephi 26:8-11); He wants us to ask Him
whether the book He caused to be placed before us is true (Moroni 10:4). Again,
true unassailable testimonies only come from the witness of the Spirit, not
scientific texts and tools.
[2]
The term “This continent” is formally interpreted by the Church today as
including both North and Central and South America (see the Gospel Topic essay
on Book of Mormon Geography, as linked herein).
[3]
As Elder
Dallin H. Oaks pointed out: “The opponents of the historicity of the Book
of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not
live anywhere in the Americas.”
[4]
Archaeology, anthropology, textual interpretations of certain Book of Mormon
passages, DNA
science, and other factors have caused interested parties to form the
various geographic models theorized today. I agree with Hugh Nibley, who
thought that the historical sciences are the weakest sciences (see Nibley,
“Archaeology and Our Religion”). The Holy Spirit of God has informed me that
the Book of Mormon is a true authentic revealed record, and therefore any
science which appears to contradict that precious truth is in error. God knows
far more than men and women, scientists or not. Why would anyone ever take the
word of men/women over the word of God given us by the power of the Holy Spirit?
[5]
This quotation is from the second edition of “Charge to Religious Educators,” a
Seminary and Institute in-service/training manual prepared and published by the
Church, collecting talks by General Authorities on doctrine and teachings
skills. Later editions have included talks from more recent General Authorities
and dropped those of the former. I have seen this Harold B. Lee quotation repeated
extensively online by Book of Mormon geography enthusiasts and theorists, as
quoted from my 2005 publication Determining Doctrine. Most of them have
interpreted it the opposite of how I do.
[6]
Boyd K. Packer, “Keeping Confidences,” 5.
[7]
One peer-reviewer I sent this past thought the science in the Annotated
Edition of the Book of Mormon to be so incompetent and misleading as to
reach the point of dishonesty in their atrocious use of modern scientific
scholarship.
[8]
I speak in broad generalities here because although I have read some critics
claims to using scholarly works to attempt to disprove Book of Mormon
geographical locations, I have not read them in detail and cannot speak as an
authority in this field. Some Latter-day Saint writers that are students of
this material believe the critics claims to be largely based on feeble research
and reputations of scientists that have done little real examinations and
evaluations. The literature I have read indicates that comparatively little
actual excavations and field research has been done by non-Latter-day Saint
scientists seeking to engage Latter-day Saint scholars’ findings and defenses.
No comments:
Post a Comment