Book of Mormon geography may be smaller than you think

Transcription

1 Book of Mormon geography may be smaller than you think Michael R. Ash Mormon Times Monday Oct As explained last week, ancient "historians" often understood things differently than we do today. It was pointed out, for example, that the "earth" was not understood in the same way 20th-century people understand the term "earth." By applying this same ancient understanding to Book of Mormon authors, we gain new insight to the lands that were likely inhabited by the Nephites and Lamanites. When modern Americans read that Nephite lands were "nearly surrounded by water" (Alma 22:32) and that a narrow neck of land separated the land northward from the land southward, we tend to instinctively visualize the narrow corridor of modern Panama and how it connects North America to South America. What are the chances that an author in 600 B.C. would have visualized this in the same way? It's doubtful that in the absence of modern maps, satellite photos, and a modern understanding of our planet, Book of Mormon authors understood the geographical shape of North and South America or that they were bracketed by the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Ancient people tended to view the world on a much smaller scale than we do today. For them, the world consisted of those areas in which they were able to make contact. In Exodus 10:12, for instance, we read that the Lord caused the "land of Egypt" to be swarmed by locusts. Yet in verse 15 we read that the locusts covered "the face of the whole earth." Obviously the whole earth still referred to Egypt. Likewise, in Luke 2:1 we read that Caesar Augustus sent a decree to tax "all the world," but no one believes that Augustus was taxing all the people in Europe, Asia and the Americas. Most people are surprised to hear that about 95 percent of the Old Testament took place in an area only 150 miles long and less than 75 miles wide. Ancient Jerusalem encompassed a mere 13 acres (E.W. Heaton, Every Day Life in the Old Testament,56). This is a remarkably small area when we recall that 640 acres are needed to cover a square mile or that the Smith family farm where Joseph had his First Vision covered about 100 acres (Matthew Brown, A Pillar of Light, 25). When we examine the actual text of the Book of Mormon -- and put aside our assumptions and traditional interpretations influenced by our modern world views -- it becomes apparent that most of the Book of Mormon also took place in a limited geographic area. Book of Mormon travel distances, where noted, are always mentioned in terms of how long the trip took. All travel distances that we can decipher indicate a very limited scale, probably no more than a few hundred miles -- perhaps a total area about the size of Tennessee. While there are a number of different theories as to the location of Book of Mormon events, most LDS scholars believe they happened in Central America. This theory naturally raises the 1

2 question: What do we do with the many statements -- made by various general authorities and even prophets -- that suggest that the Nephites and Lamanites covered the entire Western Hemisphere or that Book of Mormon events took place in the United States? Such concerns bring us back to our earlier discussions on the difference between the revelatory and nonrevelatory comments of church leaders. There is no revelation on Book of Mormon geography. There is no official LDS position. In the absence of revelation, prophets, like anyone else, are free to draw conclusions based on evidence and analysis. Statements based on personal analysis, however, do not constitute official doctrine (more on Book of Mormon geography in a future issue). Another interesting ancient insight into the Book of Mormon is hyperbole (or exaggeration). In 2 Samuel 24:9, for instance, we read that Judah and Israel had a combined army of about 1.3 million soldiers. Scholars believe this is a ridiculously high number for two tribal armies in 1000 B.C. There were only about 1.4 million active-duty American soldiers in 2001 (Blake Ostler, "DNA Strands in the Book of Mormon," 69). In 1 Samuel 15:20 we read that the Israelites "utterly destroyed the Amalekites," their enemies. Several chapters later, however, the Amalekites were still giving them fits (see 27:8 and 30:1). Such instances of ancient textual hyperbole should help us understand the Book of Mormon's references to how many people were slain in battle, the number of soldiers, or if really all Jaredites were exterminated. In the next few issues, we'll continue our discussion on the Book of Mormon text and work our way into a discussion about the coming forth of the English translation. Blogs on this article: Mormon Scholar 8:45 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009 Mr. Ash If the Israelites of the Book of Mormon landed in an already populated country why is there no specific reference to these other people? Were there no battles for supremacy worthy of mention? No conversion stories of these "others" when they turned to the God of Israel? Surely encountering various pagan groups, who far outnumbered Lehi's group, all speaking different languages, would have merited a line or two. Are we to believe that these pagans meekly joined the small group of Israelites? All through the Old Testament there are references to the civilizations surrounding the Israelites and their battles. Why aren't there similar references in the Book of Mormon? Skeptical 8:38 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009 Joseph Smith verified Nephite cities in Missouri and identified Zelph. There are also several statements about Hill Cumorah being the same Hill Cumorah as in the Book of Mormon from the first presidency. Joseph Smith supposedly spent a number of evenings conversing with the angel about the Book of Mormon. Wouldn't he be in the best position to have an informed opinion on the 2

3 geography of the Book of Mormon? After the angel took Joseph to the hill, Smith concluded he had visited the Hill Cumorah of Book of Mormon fame, who is to say that he was wrong? Why do the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants refer to American Indians in western Missouri as "Lamanites"? Historians Lead the Way 8:55 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009 Brother Ash very well may be right in his interesting analysis. But it is also very interesting that much of the way we view LDS history and even some doctrine today is being shaped much more by modern historians, authors and researchers than actual general authorities and other inspired leaders. Modern historians are very comfortable in gently dismissing past comments made by prophets and general authorities as simply personal opinion. It probably was only personal opinion but where do we draw the line of comfortably dismissing high leadership remarks as only opinion once they no longer fit current thinking and research? Maybe it was a mistake for past leaders to so openly and publically speculate. We see much less of that today. I suppose in the future it will be much less embarrassing to discount opinions of a Brother Ash then President Monson if updated science or other discoveries show an opinion to be incorrect. So perhaps there is some wisdom behind letting historians take the lead on ever changing issues. I suppose in the end the Gospel requires all individual members to seek their own testimony and conviction whether the words come from Brother Ash or President Monson. Anonymous 9:22 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009 Whenever science conflicts with long held beliefs the apologists march out and state their case. Have you noticed that the First Presidency remains mum unless they really need a clean up job. In that case Dallin Oaks usually comes to the rescue such as when Mark Hoffman produced the Salamander letter. It is curious to me how people think God works contrary to nature. They think some of these unexplainable phenomenon happen to test people's faith. What gives. To Michael Ash 10:01 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009 Book of Mormon readers are not told of a single Nephite or Lamanite who descended from anyone other than an Israelite. LDS scholars have yet to explain cogently why all Book of Mormon characters God included seemingly know nothing about the hordes of indigenous people that the revisionist theories require; why Joseph Smith's revelation of the Book of Mormon is trustworthy enough to extract a detailed limited geography, yet his revelations about Amerindian identity and origins are flawed, if not erroneous; and why their word should count more than that of LDS prophets on the one hand, and that of secular scholars on the other. Ralph 10:16 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009 Human beings love to jump the gun and make generalized & hasty conclusions about things. It makes perfect sense to me that, right after the church was restored, eager and zealous latterday saints (leaders included) concluded that ALL original inhabitants of the Americas were decendants of Lehi. I can accept that even Joseph Smith declared the present-day Cumorah to be the same one mentioned in the Book of Mormon, when that may not in fact be the case. No biggie for me. Human beings are, after all, human beings. Where the rubber hits the road for me is the gospel itself. Does living the restored gospel bring joy, peace, comfort, and a closeness to God? It does for me. I may not have all of the answers when it comes to things 3

4 like DNA, but I am patient. How much of what scientists long ago KNEW without a doubt to be true do we still hold to today? For me, God and science go hand-in-hand. RI Reader 11:03 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009 We can add these comments by Mr. Ash to all of those from people who think the Earth couldn't have been flooded under Noah -such a flood is impossible, it must have just been a local thing around the Black Sea. When we think small, we come to small conclusions. When we say: "we have scientific proof", we use science as a stick, not a tool. Not too many years ago, science rejected the notion that there were many galaxies in space. Now we know most stars are galaxies. I prefer to believe Joseph Smith was right, and let science catch-up, rather than believe scientific thoughts must be right (because they stem from a "method") and therefore we need to find ways to diminish Joseph Smith. Look at the movements of the Tectonic plates in Central America and the Caribbean, and reread the stories of destruction cantering on Christ coming to America. Lots of movement and change occurred in a short time. And no one talks about the common Book of Mormon land references after 3rd Nephi. Maybe the obvious is no longer there and our small minds are fooled by limited views! Cosmo 11:39 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009 Sceptical part II 8:43 a.m. Oct. 5, 2009 wrote: "Michael R. Ash admitted the new limited geography argument goes against the past statements of church leaders: "Joseph's opinions on the subject do not, however, constitute revelation.... While Joseph's opinions might be interesting, they can be discarded when they conflict with revealed doctrine, scientific facts, or in-depth examination ("Were the Lehites Alone in the Americas?," by Michael R. Ash). Mr. Ash, if Mormons are free to discard statements of their leaders when they "conflict" with "scientific facts, or in-depth examination" why not reject the Book of Mormon entirely? There is not one piece of archaeology or ancient script to establish that the Lehites ever existed. "Facts" show that Mesoamerica has been continuously inhabited by descendants of Siberian people, not Israelites. How does one determine when to ignore the prophet's statements? Are current LDS scholars to be considered more authoritative on Book of Mormon people and geography than Joseph Smith, prophets or apostles?" HUH??? 12:00 p.m. Oct. 5, 2009: Central America, the promised land??? Are you kidding??? Have you been there??? Name one prophecy in the Book of Mormon that has been fulfilled in Central America!! (It shall be a land of liberty, religious people will be motivated by the Spirit to move there, will win independence from Kings, a free people, wealthly, powerful, white and delightsome [1 Nephi 13:15]. New Latter-day church will rise in this area). All those blessings have been fulfilled in the United States of America. My guess is the Nephites lived in the area now known as the USA. How can an intelligent person come to another conclusion??? Yikes!!! Michael Ash Mormon Times 15 Feb 2010: Before we can intelligently discuss supposed Book of Mormon anachronisms we need to explore the possible New World location for 4

5 Book of Mormon events. A geographic model will help set the background for understanding many of the future articles in this series. First, however, some significant facts must be addressed to properly examine this topic. 1. There is no official Book of Mormon geography. In the quasi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the production of which was overseen by Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve, we find the following: "The church has not taken an official position with regard to location of geographical places (in the Book of Mormon)." n 1993, in response to a query from the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, the office of the First Presidency faxed a statement, which reads in part: "The church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations... there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site." George Q. Cannon, First Presidency counselor to Presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow, said: "The First Presidency has often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information, they are not prepared even to suggest (a map). The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure..." Without revelation on the matter, we are left to our own intellects and theories. Why haven't we received revelation on this matter? Why haven't we received revelation as to the age of the Earth, the exact location of Jesus' birth, the precise location that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, the eternal purpose of dinosaurs or a definitive answer about evolution? Do the pearly gates "swing" or "slide"? Like Book of Mormon geography, such issues don't affect our salvation. Some members, however, may struggle with their testimonies if they believe the Book of Mormon cannot be correlated to any real-world geography. Conversely, a reasonable geographic model can bolster the faith of other members. 2. Joseph Smith's comments should not be construed as revelatory. Although most members tacitly acknowledge that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on the location of Book of Mormon events, some members seem to believe that statements made by Joseph Smith implicitly represent revelation on the topic. 5

6 Some have even gone as far to suggest that those who disagree with Joseph Smith's geographical comments are guilty of rejecting the prophet or that they are out of harmony with the LDS Church. This is a strange accusation and implies that those church leaders who have said that there is no official Book of Mormon geography are also on the road to apostasy, which is obviously untrue. Just because Joseph translated the Book of Mormon doesn't mean he received revelation as to whereabouts of those events. When we read his statements on the matter, it becomes apparent that he had some strong opinions but that his opinions changed with time and reflected his best intellectual efforts to discover answers -- just as any curious individual would do. Because he never claimed to know the geography from revelation, we shouldn't make this claim for him. This also applies to statements by all modern prophets. No prophet has claimed revelation on Book of Mormon geography, and their comments should be tempered by our discussion in issues Critics like to quote Joseph's mother, Lucy, who said that while Lord prepared Joseph to acquire the plates, "God... manifest(ed) to him" some of the "particulars" concerning the Book of Mormon. According to Lucy, Joseph described the "ancient inhabitants of this continent," as well as their dress, mode of traveling, their cities and more (History of Joseph Smith, 83). According to the critics, this suggests that Joseph knew everything about the Book of Mormon, saw exactly what their lives were lik, and would know where the events took place. Firstly, Lucy dictated her thoughts nearly two decades after they happened. Secondly, just because Joseph saw such things in vision doesn't mean that Joseph knew the location of the events. Seeing people and buildings is not the same as seeing a map or satellite image. There is no evidence that God revealed the location of Book of Mormon events to Joseph Smith. Real science, truth coincide with real Mormon scholarship Michael Ash Mormon Times 22 Feb 2010 Before we get to Book of Mormon geography, archaeology and anachronisms, (as well as related issues such as DNA) we need to take another side-trip to a general topic that relates to the studies of these issues -- Mormonism, science, and truth. Joseph Smith explained that "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." "We should gather all the good and true 6

7 principles in the world and treasure them up," he said another time, "or we shall not come out true Mormons." While science is unable to answer the questions about the purpose for life, the hereafter, or many other things that must be taken on faith, accurate science is necessary for telling us about the world in which we live. As Elder John A. Widtsoe said: "Truth is truth forever. Scientific truth cannot be theological lie." Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and an atheist who became a (non-lds) Christian, explains that "Science is the only legitimate way to investigate the natural world." "...Yes, experiments can fail spectacularly, interpretations of experiments can be misguided, and science can make mistakes. But the nature of science is self-correcting. No major fallacy can long persist in the face of a progressive increase in knowledge" (Francis Collins, The Language of God, 228). It's my opinion that there are at least a few immutable laws that govern all things in all places, and that even God adheres to these laws (some would argue that he is part of such laws or created these laws). Other laws may be specific for individual realms or spheres and cannot typically be broken (or broken frequently) without causing havoc in that sphere. Science is the tool by which we can learn something of these laws as they pertain to our mortal existence. Through the years some members have claimed that God gives us false information through science to test our faith. To apply a quote attributed to Albert Einstein, I believe "God is subtle, not malicious." Other vocal members have made anti-science comments or have implied that science and intellectualism are at odds with faith and truth. While it's OK to believe that science doesn't have all the answers, we need to be careful not to turn healthy skepticism into cynicism of the methods and knowledge that make our world a better, safer, and healthier place. We must remember that God is also the author of science. What does this have to do with the Book of Mormon? First, we should be careful not to conflate folklore, opinion, and tradition with revelation. In the absence of revelation (on any topic), we are left on our own to form theories and conclusions. Second, our intellectual efforts should utilize the tools of science and scholarship -- such as evidence, analysis, and argument. Third, we should also be wary of those who claim that science has "proven" the Book of Mormon. Years ago, LDS anthropologist Dr. John Sorenson wrote an article lamenting the myths contrived and perpetuated by LDS writers using bad logic and even worse science. Such approaches, Sorenson wrote, are naïve, logically inconsistent, and in the end are harmful to 7

8 the church and members. How could supposedly "faith-promoting" material be harmful? Sorenson gave three reasons: First, they train the reader that serious, critical thought is unnecessary and maybe even undesirable, that any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable, and that logical absurdity is as good as sound analysis. Second, the reader gets the false impression that all is well in Zion, that the outside world is being forced to the LDS point of view, and that the only role LDS scholars need play in Book of Mormon-related studies is to use scissors and paste effectively. Third, the underlying complexity and subtlety of the Book of Mormon are masked by a pseudo-scholarship to which everything is simple. Such pseudo-scholarship, Sorenson points out, sets up "a straw-man Book of Mormon to attack based on what Mormons have said about it instead of what it says itself." As Hyrum Smith once said, "It is better not to have so much faith, than to have so much as to believe all the lies." When we examine issues like Book of Mormon DNA, geography, and archaeology, we need to approach these topics with real science and scholarship -- not pseudo-science and soft assumptions. We need to be prepared to change our views from what we've been taught through non-revelatory sources such as tradition and folklore. In doing so, we can gain new insights on those things that have been restored by the power of God. My Comment on the blog for this article Other comments Very Interesting: It is very hard to argue with what Mr. Ash wrote in his article. But applying his points can be extremely difficult for both church leadership and many members. Ash's conclusion: "When we examine issues like Book of Mormon DNA, geography, and archaeology, we need to approach these topics with real science and scholarship -- not pseudo-science and soft assumptions. We need to be prepared to change our views from what we've been taught through non-revelatory sources such as tradition and folklore. In doing so, we can gain new insights on those things that have been restored by the power of God." I couldn't agree more with that statement. But Mr. Ash minimizes the origin of many of our common beliefs and understandings of the BofM and other parts of our history and beliefs. Most originate from Prophets and GAs themselves. It is extremely difficult to distinguish between revelation and "non-revelatory" opinion expressed over the years. And it appears things are being set up for scholars such as Mr. Ash to define what has been 8

9 opinion versus revelation - not our leaders. It appears our leaders have conceded the most difficult questions to scholars/apologists. I think that it has become very clear over the past 25 years or so that MUCH of our LDS history, doctrine, policies and practices have originated from tradition, culture, personal opinion and administrative necessity. This can result in a great deal of confusion and disconnect for members who have had it ingrained in them since birth that our leaders speak for the Lord - always. But now the question of when did they or do they truly speak for the Lord has become more and more unclear. For me, this has resulted in a much more independent and self-reliant testimony. I no longer just make choices in life based on what leaders have or do say. I respect what they say as one of many things to consider but I largely rely on my own sense of the spirit, logic, reason, and life experiences. And I am okay if in the end results in something very different than one may find documented in the current church handbook. Thoughts: I think that what Mr. Ash is referring to is illustrated by the following point: Many members of the Church will swear up and down that Abinadi was an old man even when the Book of Mormon never actually states his age, or that King Benjaman built a wooden tower even when the book itself never tells us how the tower was actually constructed. Why do they make such assumptions? Traditions and opinions that are tainted based on what others have said...mostly because of paintings that have been done using artistic licence...that have somehow become 'cannon' to believers. When those notions are brought into question people go nuts. There are many such beliefs held among members of the Church and many 'testimonies' are lost based on these falsehoods. Often what we think we 'know' isn't really knowledge and faith based on falsehood can't stand for very long. Account of 'Zelph' discovery does little to advance geography theory Michael R Ash 27 Dec 2010 Fourth on my list of common arguments advocating a Book of Mormon Great Lakes geography is. Joseph Smith made several comments which suggest that ancient remains discovered in their vicinity once belonged to Book of Mormon peoples. With one notable exception, Joseph never claimed to have received revelation concerning any ancient Indian artifacts; the one possible exception is Zelph. In 1834 while traveling to Missouri with Zion s camp, Joseph and several other members passed through Pike County, Ill., which was dotted with Indian burial mounds, bones and other artifacts. Like the rest of us, these early Mormons tried to make sense of new 9

10 information according to their current understanding. To the early Mormons, all ancient American artifacts were obvious evidences for the Book of Mormon. Joseph was not immune to such speculations. Writing to his wife Emma, he recounted how their group had wandered over the plains of the Nephites and the mounds of the Book of Mormon people, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.... On June 3, the day before Joseph wrote his letter to Emma, some of the men had dug into a mound and discovered human skeletal remains and an arrowhead. The current edition of the History of the Church suggests a first-hand account by the Prophet wherein he said that by way of revelation he learned that the bones belonged to a white Lamanite named Zelph who was a warrior under the prophet Onandagus who was known from the hill Cumorah or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains and that he was killed during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites ( HC 2:79). This account, however, is not a first-hand report from the Prophet. In typical 19th-century fashion, the official history comprised details from a variety of journal entries but was written as if Joseph, himself, were authoring the history. Willard Richards, who was responsible for compiling the events into one narrative, made some alterations that affected how future generations understood the details of the event.of the seven accounts of the event only one mentions Cumorah while the other five do not. By the time our current version of the compilation came to be, some details that are not supported by all of the six accounts were included into print. As Kenneth Godfrey observes, "Wilford Woodruff s statement that mounds in the area had been built 'probably by the Nephites and Lamanites' became an implied certainty when Richards left out the word 'probably.' The mere 'arrow' of the three earliest accounts became an 'Indian Arrow' and finally a 'Lamanitish Arrow.' The phrase 'known from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains,' became 'known from the Hill Cumorah' or 'eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains.' The statement that the battle in which Zelph was killed occurred 'among the Lamanites' became 'with the Lamanites.' There is also some question as to the accuracy of the various accounts. We don t know, for example, how much time elapsed between when the event transpired and when the accounts were recorded. Some of the accounts claim that the Zelph bones belonged to a man of large stature, whereas other accounts claim that he was short and stout. We know from at least one record that the author was not a first-hand witness, and we are unsure if any of the authors were first-hand witnesses or if they simply recorded hearsay. In general, however, the accounts agree that Joseph said the bones belonged to a white Lamanite named Zelph. Several of the accounts suggest that Joseph learned this information from a vision. 10

11 As noted in a past issue, the term Lamanite is a cultural designation assigned to Lamanites by an outside group (just like the term Indians ). An individual could become a Lamanite. An entire group could become Lamanites when no other Lamanites existed. The term varied in application during Book of Mormon times. During Joseph s day (and, for the most part, in our modern Mormon vernacular), the term Lamanite was synonymous with Indian, Native American or, in some cases, Polynesian. Therefore, even if we accept a belief that Joseph received a revelation about a white Lamanite named Zelph, what do we really learn? According to such a revelation these men had discovered the bones of a pure, or righteous Indian ( Lamanite ) possibly a prophet (and there is nothing in LDS doctrine that would preclude a Lamanite from also being a prophet ) who was killed in battle (the issue of white and pure will be discussed in a future installment). While we may freely accept that Joseph had a vision concerning the person whose bones were discovered, we learn more about early Mormon speculations concerning Book of Mormon geography than we do about revelations on Book of Mormon geography. As Apostle John A Widtsoe remarked, This is not of much value in Book of Mormon geographical studies, since Zelph probably dated from a later time when Nephites and Lamanites had been somewhat dispersed and had wandered over the country (Improvement Era, July 1950, 547). 11