The fight over Book of Mormon geography

The discussion on Book of Mormon geography was getting heated. Scholars gathered in Provo, Utah, to discuss their theories about where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place. Some placed the Nephite capital city Zarahemla in Mesoamerica, others in South America. Others argued for a setting in the American heartland.

The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attended the two-day Book of Mormon convention. Although he found the discussion interesting, he was obviously concerned that people were getting a little too worked up about their geographic theories. He decided to intervene.

The Book of Mormon geography conference was held at Brigham Young Academy on May 23-24, 1903. But the advice President Joseph F. Smith gave at that conference 107 years ago could apply equally to current disputes over Book of Mormon geography.

"President Smith spoke briefly," the Deseret News account summarized, "and expressed the idea that the question of the city (of Zarahemla) was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people; and he advised against students considering it of such vital importance as the principles of the Gospel."

More recently, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism described how "Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography."

But the lack of an official position hasn't squelched interest. The subject attracts highly trained archaeologists and scholars and informed — and not-so-informed — amateurs and enthusiasts. Books, lectures and even Book of Mormon lands tours abound.

In the middle of what could be a fun and intellectually exciting pursuit similar to archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann's famous search for the lost city of Troy, there are accusations of disloyalty tantamount to apostasy.

In one corner is the more-established idea of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. This theory places the events of the book in a limited geographic setting that is about the same size as ancient Israel. The location is in southern Mexico and Guatemala. The person most often associated with this theory is John L. Sorenson, a retired professor of anthropology at BYU, and the author of "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" and a series of articles on Book of Mormon geography that ran in the Ensign magazine in September and October 1984. A new book, tentatively titled "Mormon's Codex," is in the process of being published.

In the other corner is the challenger, a new theory that places Book of Mormon events in a North American "heartland" setting. Like the Mesoamerican theory, it also is limited in area — but not quite as limited. Its symbolic head is Rod L. Meldrum and, more recently, Bruce H. Porter. Meldrum and Porter are the co-authors of the book "Prophecies and Promises," which promotes the heartland setting.

It wouldn't be hard to predict that some friction might come about from competing theories — that healthy sparring would occur with arguments and counter-arguments. But it has gone beyond that.

The source of the animosity comes from the heartland theory's mantra: "Joseph knew."

Joseph Smith made several statements that can be interpreted to have geographic implications. Proponents of a North American setting see these statements as authoritative and based in revelation. Mesoamerican theorists think that Joseph Smith's ideas about geography expanded over time and included approval of at least some connection to Central America.

To the heartlander, Joseph's knowledge about Book of Mormon locations is seen as proof of his divine calling and a testament to his being the chosen translator/expert of the book. Joseph didn't just know; he knew everything. This position, however, leaves little room for other opinions — or for charity.

"The way I look at Joseph Smith's statements is that he either knew or he didn't know. If he knew, he knew by revelation. And if he didn't know, you've got to ask yourself why he said the things that he said," Porter said. "If he didn't know, was he trying to show off? If he really didn't know, why was he telling people?

If you don't agree with this line of reasoning, by implication, you think that Joseph lied.

"My authority is Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon," Porter said. "Most of your Mesoamerican theorists, their authority is John Sorenson and Matthew Roper. They picked those as their authority at the neglect of Joseph Smith."

Matthew P. Roper, a research scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute Of Religious Scholarship, naturally doesn't like this characterization. "They seem to be trying to elevate a question of lesser importance, Book of Mormon geography, to the level of the doctrines of the church," Roper said. "And even though they give lip service to things like they know the church has not given an official position, they turn around and say, 'All these people are dismissing Joseph Smith.' "

It is somewhat ironic that believing that Joseph did not "know" also supports Joseph as a prophet. The more Joseph's assumptions about Book of Mormon geography prove to be wrong, the greater a testimony that he did not write the book himself. "We assume," Roper said, "that since Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon, and that it was translated by the gift and power of God, that he would know everything about the book that an author would. I would submit that the two are not the same thing. I could translate the 'Wars of Caesar' and not know anything about ancient Gaul or the different tribes."

When Meldrum's theories first became popularized through firesides and a DVD he produced, the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) took notice and responded with gusto.

"The way he said things, they attack that more than they attack the evidence that he presented," Porter said.

Scott Gordon, president of FAIR, would not disagree. "We view this as a steadying-of-the-ark issue. We really don't care where he picks for his theory on where the Book of Mormon can take place," Gordon said. "What we care about that he is implying that the church is not following the teachings of Joseph Smith. Which means the church leadership, the prophet — everything is not following. And we think that is a very, very dangerous position."

"They are getting really worried because they are seeing this is becoming a movement. That's their words," Meldrum said. "They are just saying it's a movement because they are getting a lot of flak from people who are seeing the DVD and the information and thinking, 'You know what, this makes a lot of sense.' "

But supporters also see the heartland theory as an inspired movement that will transform the LDS Church: "(V)ery few people out there fully grasp the magnitude of this movement and the powerful influence that it is having and the sweeping nature of its message," wrote one prominent supporter. "It will sweep the church and most LDS will not even understand what happened until it's past. … Time is our friend."

Historian Ronald O. Barney has seen similar attitudes in some people supporting Mesoamerica. One person described a particular Mesoamerican book as "life-transforming" and that the book "changed the way I think about everything."

"People are hanging their faith on evidence of Book of Mormon peoples," Barney said.

"I just think that this way of thinking about our religion is such a waste of time," Barney said, "It almost suggests we don't trust the Holy Ghost. Not only are we worried that he won't reveal to people the truthfulness of the book, but we want to augment it — even if we have to bend and distort — so that there can be no mistake about its truthfulness."

"I don't know that this geography is true. I've said that many times and I want to make sure that that's clear. If President Monson was to tomorrow say, 'You know what? I've had a revelation and the Book of Mormon occurred in Indonesia,' you know what? I'm with him." Meldrum said with a laugh.

"(Geography) wasn't very important to him and he didn't know much about it," Sorenson said. "Joseph knew what he knew — and what he knew was far more important than geography."

You make it sound like you would have liked to have met Joey Smith... [TN suggestively to Restornu]

LOTS & LOTS of dead women were sealed to Smith, Brigham, and other "prophets" like Wilford Woodruff...Per the Tanners, Woodruff did so with even his single extended relatives and ancestors!!!

Might not be too late, Resty!

You DO remember one of those "classic" "services" that the Flying Inmans have offered for several years now, doncha?

Here, I'll provide a reminder on this remembrance weekend!:

Twas Spring of '08, aMorePerfectUnion posted this FReeper Flying Inman 'keeper classic" note:

eHaremny!
You are looking for a wife? Please choose one...
A. Alive Wife
B. Dead Wife

'Tis seems that assessment is appropo -- as contemporary Mormons continue to see themselves as marital matchmakers for the dead! [Cue the macabre organ music]

My comeback to AMPU at that time was to come up with a marketing tag-line for "eHaremny": "We evaluate 'sister wives' on 29 dimensions of compatibility!"

Here was some of the potential "ad copy" we discussed running for "e-haremny":

"The Last days got you down?
"Single with absolutely no hope of attaining the celestial kingdom level minus a husband?
"Wanna be eternally pregnant with spirit babies?
"Can't wait to call your husband 'Master & Lord' forever?
"Wanna permanently lose the line, 'Not tonight, honey, I have a headache?'
"Call eHaremny now!"

Since then, I've thought of another marketing one-liner...for brand purposes:

"E-Haremny: For the well-endowed!!!" [OK, if you're non-Mormon and didn't get it, Google Lds and "endowments"]

(AMPU and I have "threatened" to begin work on a Muslim version of eHaremny as well. We'll up the dimensions' match-up from 29 to their Scriptural specifications of 72; plus it's not just any woman...they HAVE to to be virgins. In the interest of the sanctity-of-life, however, I think we'll be excluding applications from martyrs)

Book of Mormon version of Jesus speaking post-resurrection

Read in context, the words of Jesus that you have quoted were spoken DURING, not AFTER, the three days of darkness. Therefore, they were not spoken "post-resurrection".

Furthermore, the personal ministry of Jesus in Land Bountiful, in Mesoamerica, did not occur until nearly a year after the destructions took place. Reaganaut was also confused about the sequence of events. This is what I sent to him:

Just read the Third Book of Nephi and this sequence of events will seen as correct:

3 Nephi 4:6, Restored Covenant Edition:
"And it came to pass that in the thirty and fourth year, IN THE FIRST MONTH, in the fourth day of the month..."

Then follows a description of massive destructions.

3 Nephi 4:17, RCE:
"...all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours."

Then follows three days of darkness, during which the survivors in devastated areas howled, "O that we had repented before this great and terrible day..."

During the three days of darkness the survivors heard the voice of Jesus Christ speaking to them, explaining why the destructions had to come upon them: "to hide their wickedness and their abominations from before My face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up anymore unto Me against them ... O all ye that are spared because ye were more righteous than they, will ye not return unto Me and repent of your sins and be converted, that I may heal you?" etc.

3 Nephi 4:74, RCE:
"And it came to pass that IN THE ENDING of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I [Mormon] will show unto you that the people of Nephi which were spared, and also they which had been called Lamanites which were spared, did have great favors shown unto them and great blessings poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven, He did truly manifest Himself unto them..."

Notice the clear contrast between "in the first month" of the 34th year for the destructions and "in the ending" of the 34th year for the manifestation of Jesus Christ.

So I was correct in stating the the destructions took place about a year before the ministry of Christ in America, which I find to be stunningly beautiful, so much so that it inspired me to write the poem "Behold the Children", which I posted on this thread.

"Behold the children in God's love."

[Except that Jesus explicitly said NOT to keep back children from coming unto Him...and the Lds/Rlds advice to families is for 7 yo & younger not to come to His baptism hand...where the Body of Christ baptizes them in the singular NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19)]

Now that's a cause for tears!

I don't think that this misrepresentation should be allowed to stand unchallenged. I have witnessed many baby blessings in the Community of Christ.

[Sec 17:19] Every member of the church of Christ having children, is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.

[Sec 17:20] No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.

Here is a hymn I wrote in 1982 for the blessing of an infant nephew of mine:

Fresh from thy presence, Lord, this child we see
Reflecting image of Thy majesty,
And yet how helpless clings,
What joy to parents brings.
In sighs of thankfulness rings this mystery.

Before they people, Lord, we now see blessed
By elders of thy church this special guest
From those bright realms above
Where all things bask in love.
On earth may this child know of all that is best.

Baby blessings are beautiful experiences in the Community of Christ.

Baby blessings...No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.

"Accountability" = age 8
So, John, if you're the father of a 7 1/2 year old, and he has a mouth issue, or some repeat disobedience issue, are you seriously telling me he can't repent ot that? Really?

You raise the issue of "accountability." Have you reviewed a few verses of what the Bible says about that among humankind from the get-go?

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)

Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. (Psalm 58:3)

"Wayward" is a directional/orientation word...as an infant begins to transition into a toddler, you don't need to teach them to become self-centered. They already are. Tantrums are their forte'. In fact, an infant is the most self-centered creature there is.

Baby blessings...

Baby blessings? What children need are to be delivered from this body of death and natural death. Joseph Smith made the terrible assumption that children were already "alive in Christ" (Moroni 8:12; Moroni 8:13 in the RCE version). He also made the terribly bad assumption, going against David & the Psalms above, that "little children are not capable of committing sin" (Moroni 8:8).

"They were not baptized...save they were worthy of it." (Moroni 6:2, RCE; 6:1 in regular BoM)

What utter Joseph Smith nonsense! Worthiness as an invitation to baptize?

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. (Acts 2:38-39)

If even the Lds and RLds recognize the need to baptize "for the remission of sins," then...
...doesn't our unworthiness (our need for sins to be forgiven) actually serve as our "qualication" for baptism -- NOT our so-called Smithian "worthiness?"
...and if children are "whole," "incapable of sin," then why did Smith elsewhere say children need to be baptized for the remission of sin? What sin if they are whole and incapable of sinning? (see D&C 19:31; JFS-V 1:33)

And you somehow think that because a church organization "blesses" them, that's enough. These children need Christ. They don't need an organizational blessing. In fact, the apostle Paul says we ALL are baptized into a Person -- Jesus Christ -- we're NOT to be baptized into a church org:

Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (Romans 6:3)

I never got one. Every time I went through that fasting and praying thing, the answer I got was a deafening silence.

- - - -

I see God in nature, in animals, biology, plants, sunrises...I have always found nature to be where I FEEL closest to God (even when I lived in Provo, I would go up to Squaw Peak to read scripture and pray).

But that is not WHY I trust God. I trust God because He tells me that I need to. Mark 9:24 is one of my favorite verses - “Straight away the father of the child gave a cry, saying, I have faith; make my feeble faith stronger.”

We all have doubts, if we say we don’t we are either lying to ourselves or to God. The more we exercise our faith, the more faith we have.

Binger, trusting God is not feelings, even for Christians, often it is trusting God in SPITE of our feelings and doubts. A Christian ‘testimony’ isn’t what they feel is true (like the LDS one), it is how God has worked in their life to bring them to a saving faith in Christ.

My Christian testimony also includes my time before I was really a Christian, when I was LDS, because during that time is when God started to open my eyes. He has done a marvelous work in me and brought me into a relationship with Jesus. THAT is what a Christian testimony is.

If you would like to discuss this via freepmail feel free, I can point you to some books that I think you might enjoy.

Us inmans want to see you in Heaven as well.

And you somehow think that because a church organization "blesses" them, that's enough.

The religion moderator told me that claiming to know what a person thinks is "making it personal".

What you say that I think is incorrect. Blessing is not enough, not in my thinking and not in the scriptures and beliefs of the Community of Christ. So why are you saying that I think that blessing is "enough"?

I believe that Christ wants members of His church to bring their babies to be blessed by elders of the church. I believe that Christ wants children to become members of His church through the ordinances of baptism and confirmation as is taught in our scriptures. I believe that Christians of whatever faith and practise should endure in their faith to the end.

I was only responding to your claim that the Christian church I am a member of keeps children from coming to Christ. I tried to tell you that through the ordinance of blessing we are obeying what we believe to be the will of Christ in this regard. If it is our belief that Christ wants children baptized at eight years old, we will practise that belief. I personally see wisdom in having children attain that age before baptism. Baptism before then might be more the parent's decision than the person's, and I think that it is important that baptism be chosen by the person being baptized.

I would rather discuss Book of Mormon geography. One of the pioneers in that subject was Verneil Simmons, whose 1977 book Peoples, Places, and Prophecies laid the foundation, in well-reasoned arguments, that Mesoamerica is where the Book of Mormon peoples lived. I have her book, and last Saturday I heard her tell her life story of searching for Hill Cumorah as described in the Book of Mormon. After years of study and traveling she found it in Mexico. That discovery was later confirmed by Neil Steede, who met one of the three immortal Nephites on that very mountain.

I could summarize the chief arguments in her chapter on Book of Mormon geography, and of the confirmations since then, if I were invited to do so. Personal attacks against my beliefs are not especially inviting.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.