The Ensign, circa 1984

I've been informed that some of the Mesoamericanists are saying I'm not "happy" about a 32-year-old article published in the Ensign. Here's the link to that article. I'm wondering, why would I not be happy about that article?

First, as anyone who has read this blog should know by now, in 1984 I was all-in on Mesoamerica. This Ensign article was based on Sorenson's book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. I participated in a peer-review of an early manuscript of that book, well before it was published. When the articles came out in the Ensign, I shared them often; in fact, I loaned my copy of the Ensign containing this article to an investigator and never got it back.

Second, I kept an open mind even after accepting the Mesoamerican theory. I think anyone who approaches the issue with an effort to be scientific and objective must keep an open mind, but I know a lot of Mesoamericanists whose minds are locked shut. I like what Brother Sorenson wrote in the article:

The purpose of this article and the one to follow is to sketch a few vivid examples of changes in how some Latter-day Saint scholars view the Book of Mormon in the light of new theories and discoveries about the past. These articles are not intended to be an expression of official Church teachings, but on the basis of my own research and study, I have thought this new information to be worth consideration.

The key word there is change. Some LDS scholars changed their views based on evidence back in 1984. I hope some of them can do the same now.

Ironically, many Mesoamericanists cite this article as if it reflects official Church teachings because it was published in the Ensign. Their assertion flatly contradicts the article itself.

Third, I've always pointed out that I respect Brother Sorenson and his work. I have learned a lot from him, in person as well as in his books. That said, there is a fundamental error in his work, reflected in this quotation from the article:

there is presently known only one location in the Western Hemisphere that seems qualify as that scene.

I have pointed out in this blog and in my presentations that Brother Sorenson reached his conclusion because of a faulty premise that he (and his followers) have refused to re-examine. Given that premise, one would inevitably reach the conclusion that Brother Sorenson did; i.e., that the Book of Mormon took place in Central America somewhere. (When it gets into the details, Mesoamericanists can't agree on much--not even which river is the Sidon--but they still insist this is the only possible location.)

I think Brother Sorenson and his followers do wonderful work on Mesoamerican archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc. I enjoy reading their publications. I enjoy reading about ancient cultures everywhere in the world, but that doesn't mean I think all the "correspondences" between African or Cambodian or Japanese culture and the Book of Mormon are proof that the city of Zarahemla was located in those places, any more than I think the illusory correspondences between Mayan culture and the Book of Mormon mean Zarahemla was located in Mesoamerica.

It was apparent in 1984--and is even more apparent now--that Mesoamerican cultures have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. It took me a while to realize (or admit) that, so I understand it takes a while for those who have been taught the Mesoamerican theory to think it through with an open mind. And yet, I'm confident that, eventually, the remaining Mesoamericanists will realize they've made a mistake.

So whoever thinks I'm not "happy" with the 1984 Ensign, just know I'm fine with it. In fact, it kind of reminds me of some mistakes printed in another Church publication back in 1842...

Brief overview

There are a lot of new people coming to this blog so here's a brief overview of what we're doing here.

Most readers of the Book of Mormon naturally want to know where the events took place. Where in the New World did Lehi land? Where was Zarahemla? Where was Cumorah?

In recent decades, LDS scholars have claimed the Book of Mormon took place in Central America (Mesoamerica). Their work has infiltrated Church media, lesson manuals, and literature. The origin of the theory is a series of anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons, the Church newspaper in Nauvoo. I researched the origin of those articles and wrote a book called The Lost City of Zarahemla. Basically, the focus on Mesoamerica has been a huge mistake, based on a faulty premise, and this blog seeks to correct the mistake by encouraging LDS scholars and those who have accepted their theories to take another look at the issue.

For about a hundred years, the only certain Book of Mormon location was Cumorah; i.e., the hill Cumorah near Palmyra in New York was the same Cumorah where the Nephites (and Jaredites) had the final battles that destroyed their civilizations.

Then, in the 1930s, some scholars claimed Cumorah had to be in Mesoamerica (the so-called Two Cumorah theory). in 1936, Joseph Fielding Smith, who by then had been an Apostle for 26 years and Church Historian and Recorder for 15 years (he was Assistant Church Historian for 15 years before that), addressed the Two Cumorah theory in words that, sadly, are just as true today as they were then:

"This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case."

I wrote about Cumorah in my book Letter VII: Oliver Cowdery's Message to the World about the Hill Cumorah. In Letter VII, Oliver Cowdery described the last battle and said it was a fact that the final battles took place there in New York. Joseph Smith had his scribes copy Cowdery's description into his own journal. Letter VII was republished several times before Joseph died in 1844. It was accepted doctrine, as Joseph Fielding Smith explained.

Nevertheless, many LDS scholars, including those affiliated with BYU, to this day reject Cowdery's Letter VII, along with the New York Cumorah. Right now, this semester, in 2016, BYU students are still being taught the Mesoamerican theory.

I find that appalling.

At the same time, I empathize with the scholars. They've published Mesoamerican material for decades. They've traveled to Mesoamerica, taken tours, and tried every which way to find "correspondences" between Nephite and Mayan culture. It's not easy to change one's views, especially when one's career has focused on a particular theory. For decades, I, too, accepted the Mesoamerican theory.

I'm a lawyer by profession, and I have degrees in business and economics, and I've been involved with science in my work as a lawyer, educator, and venture capitalist, so I'm pretty much an empiricist. I think truth is truth; i.e., spiritual truth is also manifest in the physical world. I wanted to test a hypothesis: If Cumorah is in New York, and Zarahemla is in Iowa (see D&C 125), does the text describe a North American setting with those two pins in the map? The result is my book, Moroni's America. I think the Book of Mormon text describes North America, with Lehi landing in Florida, the city of Nephi in Tennessee, the city of Zarahemla across from Nauvoo in Iowa, the land of Zarahemla extending through Illinois, Cumorah in New York, etc. It's all spelled out in the book and in various web pages.

This blog is not going through the geography point-by-point. In fact, I don't want the scholars to simply take my word for it. I want them to clear their minds of the Mesoamerican ideology and take a fresh look at the text. I want them to test the same hypothesis I did; i.e., that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were correct about Cumorah. If they do so, I think they'll reach the same conclusions I have about Book of Mormon geography.

Meanwhile, I hope LDS people everywhere will take the time to learn about these things because it is faith affirming to realize that Joseph and Oliver were 1) consistent and 2) accurate. The Book of Mormon did take place in North America, in the area currently known as Florida, Tennessee, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, etc.

[cross-posted at http://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/ and http://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/]

The February Ensign

I've been getting a lot of complaints about the February Ensign because of the Mesoamerican theory it perpetuates. Let me assure you I had nothing to do with it.

:)

The issue is available online here.

There are two categories of complaints:

1. The Cover.

2. The Sorenson article.

I'll address them in reverse order, in good chiastic fashion.

_____________________________

2. The Sorenson article, available here. Those who have read this blog and my books know that I respect John Sorenson and his scholarship immensely. I just think he made a big mistake focusing on Central America because he fell for the anonymous Times and Seasons articles about Central America.

This article is an excellent example of my point. Brother Sorenson unwittingly helps to prove the North American setting while disproving the Mesoamerican setting.

First, I note that the Ensign article is adapted from a longer piece published by the Maxwell Institute in 2011, available online here.

Second, Brother Sorenson's original article is an excellent resource for those interested in how the text was compiled. The Ensign edited out most of the detail while retaining the major points.

Third, the article is refreshingly devoid of references to Brother Sorenson's Mesoamerican theory, except for the point that "the book had to be portable enough that Moroni could carry it to a safe location." This passage alludes to Brother Sorenson's claim that Moroni carried the plates from Central America to New York.

That gets to my main point. Brother Sorenson writes this:

This project began at the last location where the Nephites camped before they finally gathered to the land of Cumorah.... Mormon’s writing activity probably extended into the four-year period of preparation for the final battle agreed to by the Lamanite commander, but in any case the abridged history was completed and the archive was buried in the Hill Cumorah well before the final conflict (see Mormon 6:6).... Mormon had little more than three years to do all of the compiling and writing of over 600 years of history. He may not have had time even to read through all the archival records in his hands, and there surely would be no time for stylistic fine-tuning or reediting.

Of course, Brother Sorenson thinks all of this took place in Central America. Only later, in his view, did Moroni take the plates and other artifacts to New York.

I completely agree with Brother Sorenson that Mormon compiled the text during the preparations for the final battle, but Moroni told Joseph Smith exactly where this writing project took place.

He [Moroni] then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigines of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham. He represented them as once being an enlightened and intelligent people, possessing a correct knowledge of the gospel, and the plan of restoration and redemption. He said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother's privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain, and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.

So Brother Sorenson points out that Mormon wrote the history during the preparations for the last battle, and Moroni tells Joseph Smith that the history was written and deposited not far from Joseph's home near Palmyra, New York.

Brother Sorenson is making the case for the New York Cumorah!

_____________________________

1.  The cover (and the illustration to Brother Sorenson's article) depict Mayan elements. However, as Brother Richard E. Turley, Jr., Assistant Church Historian, pointed out in the October 2015 Ensign, we shouldn't confuse artistic interpretation with historical fact or doctrine. "Over the years, artists have sought to portray the Book of Mormon translation, showing the participants in many settings and poses with different material objects. Each artistic interpretation is based upon its artist’s own views, research, and imagination, sometimes aided by input and direction from others. Here are a few scenes produced throughout the years."

The artist, Joseph Brickey, is fantastic. You can see his web page here:  He has some of the best religious art I've seen. (Those who have read The Rule of Equity will appreciate his depiction of the circle and square in the tree.) I highly recommend Brickey's art.

The cover came from this piece: http://www.josephbrickey.com/product91.html. Fortunately, it doesn't depict the anachronistic Mayan temples that we see in so much Church-sponsored art. The painting is ambiguous enough that it could represent a variety of settings. And, the text tells us Christ visited many people, not just those in Bountiful. The title of the painting is simply "Christ in America." I have no problem with that. Of course, the inference is that this painting depicts Christ visiting the Nephites, which is more problematic. He's standing at the top of stairs on what could be interpreted as a symbol of a sacrifice on an altar. Under the law of Moses, you can't have steps leading to an altar (Exodus 20:24-26). So this is not a Nephite setting. Again, it's not a problem if you understand it is not intended to depict Christ appearing to the Nephites, but most LDS, sadly, will probably think that's exactly what it's depicting.

The illustration accompanying Brother Sorenson's article is a little more problematic, although it is brilliantly painted. The printed Ensign only shows part of the painting; the online version shows the entire painting here.

I love artistic license as much as anyone, but this is supposed to be the Hill Cumorah, as you can see from the the bodies on the ground below Mormon (or Moroni), who stands on a precipice. Even 1,600 years ago, I don't think there were palm trees in New York. Nor was Lake Ontario that close to the Hill Cumorah. It's great that Mormon has a metal sword in his hilt--smelting was unknown in Mesoamerica but not in ancient North America--but some of the other elements are Mayan/Central American, which are completely out of place for the Hill Cumorah.

I realize most LDS won't pay attention to these details, but they reinforce the long tradition of Church art portraying Book of Mormon events in Central America. This type of art contravenes the official Church policy of neutrality on the question of geography.

I'm also sure some people will point to this artwork in the Ensign as evidence that the Church supports the Mesoamerican setting. Sadly, they have a point, but I think it's evidence of the persistence of a tradition based on a historical mistake, not evidence of a thoughtful consideration of the merits of the Mesoamerican theory.

For those upset by the artwork, I hope you appreciate it for the wonderful artistry and disregard it for any doctrinal implications.

:)

2016 Gospel Doctrine course handout

This is cross-posted from http://www.2016gospeldoctrine.com/.

2016 Gospel Doctrine – 

Book of Mormon Study Guide supplements from 

Moroni’s America

When we read the scriptures, it is fun and useful to think about the people in a real-world context. Many people visit Israel and the surrounding areas because of the Bible. It is striking how the Old Testament setting is also the setting for much of the New Testament. Many people also visit Church history sites for the same reason.

But what about the Book of Mormon?

As we learn more about what Joseph and Oliver Cowdery said, and what the text itself says, we discover that when we visited Church history sites in New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, we were also visiting Book of Mormon sites. We just didn’t know it.

Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon does not refer to places we recognize in modern times. Instead, we look to modern revelation, where there are scriptural references to the two most important places in the Book of Mormon: Cumorah and Zarahemla. The basic overview for Book of Mormon geography is right in the Doctrine and Covenants!

- Zarahemla, because two cultures joined there: the Nephites and the Mulekites. The text refers to Zarahemla far more than to any other site. Where is it? See D&C 125:3.

- Cumorah, because both civilizations ended there: the Nephites and the Jaredites. Where is it? See D&C 128:20 and Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII.

D&C 125 and 128 have been overlooked because overzealous missionaries in 1842, including Benjamin Winchester, thought it would be a good idea to shift the focus to the exotic ruins in Central America. For Joseph Smith, building the temple and preparing the Church for his death, while also avoiding imprisonment and a host of legal problems, dominated his thinking and energy. Besides, he had already told people the locations of Cumorah, the plains of the Nephites, Zelph, Manti, and the New Jerusalem.

Think of Zarahemla and Cumorah as pins in the map. Then you quickly get a picture of Book of Mormon geography.

The border between the Nephites and the Lamanites was the “narrow strip of wilderness” and both the land of Zarahemla  (Nephite territory) and the land of Nephi (Lamanite territory) were “nearly surrounded by water.” Alma 22. It says water, not ocean or sea. Therefore, the border between them had to be water, with a “small neck of land” between them.  Only a river can be both “water” and a “narrow strip of wilderness.” The rivers in North America (the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, and Allegheny Rivers) are a perfect fit. And the small neck of land between them—where the river border ended—is not far from Cumorah, which helps explain why Cumorah was strategically important.

There are a lot of geographic details in the Book of Mormon, but with the aid of latter-day revelation and the statements of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, it becomes apparent where the Book of Mormon took place. There is a detailed analysis of the geography verses, in chronological order, inMoroni’s America. The Lost City of Zarahemla and Brought to Light explain the Church history aspects. And Letter VII: Oliver Cowdery’s Message to the World about the Hill Cumorah explains what he and Joseph knew about Moroni and Cumorah.

See more weekly lesson supplements at http://www.2016gospeldoctrine.com/.

2016 Gospel Doctrine course

In 2016, the Gospel Doctrine course of study is the Book of Mormon. Lesson supplements each week are being posted here: http://www.2016gospeldoctrine.com/

2016 will be a significant year in Book of Mormon studies as many Church members worldwide will learn about the North American setting for the first time.

Wherever I go, the most common feedback I get from LDS members is "North American just makes sense. Central America never really made sense." Percentage-wise, in my experience fewer than 10% of members stick with the Mesoamerican theory once they learn about just these items:

- Letter VII,

- Joseph Smith's statements about the plains of the Nephites and Zelph,

- Benjamin Winchester at the Times and Seasons,

- D&C 125,

- the explanation of how the text itself describes North America, and

-the archaeological, anthropological, geological, and geographic data that supports the North American* geography.

This is going to be an awesome year for the Book of Mormon as Church members around the world will hear much more about all of these items.
_____________________________________

*for Dan Peterson and the rest of the Interpreter citation cartel, North America means north of the Rio Grande, not Central America or Mesoamerica.

For Mesoamerican holdouts

I know there are a few Mesoamerican holdouts, who insist on believing the Book of Mormon took place somewhere in Central America. Some of them read this blog and email me with comments.

So I'm sharing this fun combination of Arnold Friberg and Star Wars, neither of which have anything to do with the text:

Despite knowing...

Some years ago I was flying to the Middle East and had a conversation with a fellow passenger who, it turned out, was going on a pilgrimage to Mount Sinai.

"Are you going to the one in Egypt or the one in Saudi Arabia?" I asked, hoping to learn more about the Saudi location.

He looked puzzled. "What one in Saudi Arabia?"

"The one in the northwest, near the Gulf of Aqaba."

He had never heard of it. He was going to St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai peninsula, thinking it was Moses' Mount Sinai but unaware of the differences of opinion about the actual location. He seemed a little shaken to learn that he might not be headed for the actual Mount Sinai after all. I was sorry I'd asked the question and I hoped I didn't ruin his trip.

Anyone who has visited Israel knows there are plenty of, shall we say, "traditional" sites. They attract millions of pilgrims. Despite knowing these traditional sites have little to do with the events they commemorate, people enjoy visiting them. I've done so myself. These sites have historical significance of their own, actually, but we don't want to conflate that significance with the reality of the underlying historical events.

(As I mentioned on bookofmormonconsensus here, the Sinai controversy is a good example of the futility of creating an abstract map based on incomplete data from the scriptures. The issue is summarized pretty well by Wikipedia, here. More academic analysis is available here and here. A popular site is here.)
_______________

I was reminded of this by a recent blog post by a well-known Mesoamericanist who is visiting Central America. He's actually posting photos of Quirigua.

I know many people who have been on "Book of Mormon" tours to Central America. I've visited several of the proposed sites myself. It's always a good use of time to learn about other cultures, historical sites, etc. But why perpetuate the fantasy that the Book of Mormon took place in Central America?

Here's a quotation from the blog:

In particular, the mention of “a large stone brought … with engravings on it” (Omni 1:20) found at Zarahemla caught the attention of the Times and Seasons editor.
It is certainly a good thing for the excellency and veracity, of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, that the ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them: and that a large stone with engravings upon it, as Mosiah said.
Such “large stones,” or lakam-tuun (from Mayan, lit. large stone) are of course found throughout Mesoamerican ruins. However, the tallest are here, at Quiriguá.

The incongruity should be obvious. The reference in Omni refers to "a" large stone; i.e., it was unique and memorable, so unusual that it merits 10% of the highly condensed book of Omni (3/30 verses).

In North America, such a large engraved stone would be unique and memorable. By contrast, such large stones "are of course found throughout Mesoamerican ruins."

Had the Book of Mormon taken place in Mesoamerica, the stone brought to Mosiah would hardly be remarkable.
_________________________

This is yet another example of:

1) how the text describes not Mesoamerican culture but North American culture;

2) how ridiculous the Times and Seasons articles are (the blogger admits, "Despite knowing it is not directly related to the Book of Mormon, it was fun seeing the ruins of Quiriguá and standing next to the largest known lakam-tuun in all of Mesoamerica. The role it played in early LDS thought—and very likely Joseph Smith’s own thinking about the Book of Mormon—makes it a significant site for Latter-day Saints and the intellectual history of Book of Mormon geography and archaeology.")

3) how people believe what they want to believe despite the evidence (in this case relying on the goofy black-box stylometry material as evidence that Joseph Smith wrote the Times and Seasons articles).

BTW, it's been over a year now and I'm still waiting for the data on the stylometry material, despite numerous requests. The authors have published their conclusions and presented it publicly to contradict the historical evidence, but they have refused to share their data, their software, or their assumptions. It's pure bias confirmation, in my opinion, which is why it persuades only those who want to believe it.

______________