The principle of choice and the new blog

One of the biggest requests I get regarding Book of Mormon geography is to clarify the issues. I started that by listing areas in which people (both scholars and nonscholars) agree, and areas in which they can agree to disagree. That list is here, and I will edit it as I get feedback and comments. I want to be as accurate and specific as possible.

As part of that effort, here's the new blog I mentioned last week:
http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/.

Eventually I'll have one for each of the theories: bookofmormonchile, bookofmormonbaja, bookofmormonheartland, etc.

I'm starting with Central America because it's the one that has received the most attention, by far. I plan to cut through the clutter and discuss the essence of each theory.

Every theory comes with assumptions, interpretations, implications and consequences. Often these are obscure. In some cases, I suspect they are not completely thought out.

The agree/agree-to-disagree chart is a start. The goal is a more comprehensive analysis, in which the assumptions, interpretations, implications and consequences of each theory are set out so everyone can make an informed decision.

There is no right or wrong here; people can believe whatever they want. It's a question of trade-offs and priorities. 
_____________________

Some people consider this process contentious, and sometimes it can appear that way, but really, this discussion is a presentation of alternatives. The Book of Mormon teaches the importance of choice, and choice requires alternatives: "it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things."

Furthermore, no one should feel compelled or obligated to defer to anyone else's view. Some people might consider this question to be one the scholars should solve, but I disagree. Certainly, one does not need to be a scholar to understand the choices if they are presented clearly. "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other."

In fact, the more I've thought about this, the more I realize the goal of reaching a consensus may have been a mistake. That goal carries the implication that a group of interested people could reach an agreement that others should follow.

Instead, this process seems designed to enable each individual to make his/her own choice. The key is that the choice be fully informed.

Looking back, that's what I've tried to do on this blog; i.e., examine what has been written on the topic and discuss areas that have not been fully disclosed or analyzed. The discussion of the Hill Cumorah is a prime example.

With these principles in mind, we can all respect one another's choices with no contention or argument. I want to understand fully what others believe and why. If I ever misstate an aspect of a theory, I hope someone lets me know so I can correct it.

Of course, this process bears the risk of people making their choices without considering all the information; i.e., people might make choices based on tradition, emotion, personal relationships, deference to others, etc. But that's true of all the choices we make. We are each responsible for the amount of thought and effort we put into our choices.

This isn't to say everyone needs to become an expert on the topic. But understanding the geography, in my opinion, is important for understanding the purposes of the Book of Mormon and how it can be used in our day to fulfill those purposes.

Another important point: I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not. I do think that a full examination of the assumptions, interpretations, implications and consequences of each theory leads to a conclusion, which I have spelled out in Moroni's America, but certainly that's not the last word, and I'm continually adjusting my thinking as more evidence comes forth and I get more feedback.

I hope that by clarifying these issues, people who want to make informed choices can do so. 

Pick your logo - Book of Mormon Central

Logos can tell a lot about an organization's objectives and purpose.

One example is Book of Mormon Central, a web page that purports to be neutral regarding Book of Mormon geography. Its logos (and content) tell another story.

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ is the web page of a nonprofit named Ancient America Foundation, which was chartered in Utah in 1983. To the right is its logo.

It's a Mayan pyramid, of course. That's because Ancient America Foundation is 100% focused on Mesoamerica.

The history of AAF is spelled out here. [In case they delete/modify it, I posted it at the end of this post.]

You can see it consists exclusively of Mesoamerican proponents (although some of the early people had a more hemispheric concept at times).

Next, let's look at a "division" of Book of Mormon Central. It's called Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum. It, too, is exclusively focused on Mesoamerica.

Check out these logos.

At least this one has one thing actually mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon: it has a depiction of metal plates. But you can read the text as many times as you want and you won't find any mention of pyramids, or buildings made of stone.

BMAF recently updated logo to show how BMAF is a "division" of Book of Mormon Central. They are so closely linked that they share content. They certainly share ideology.













Next we have the logo for Book of Mormon Central itself. This is basically the old FARMS logo, showing Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian, and Mayan glyphs or characters. No ambiguity there.

You can look at the other "affiliates" of Book of Mormon Central and see that they are all unabashedly focused on Mesoamerica.

These logos tell us that Book of Mormon Central and its affiliates have these other things they have in common:

1. the two-Cumorah theory (meaning, they insist the "real" Cumorah is in Mexico somewhere).

2. They reject Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII.

3. They think the storehouse of records that Joseph, Oliver and others visited on multiple occasions was actually in Mexico, and that Joseph and Oliver merely saw it in vision.

4. They think Joseph didn't know much about the Book of Mormon, that he speculated about where the Nephites lived, and that he relied on scholarship to solve the question.

5. They think the entire Western Hemisphere is the land of promise and the nation that Nephi prophesied would be the site of the Restoration, etc.

Just to be clear, this is all fine. People can believe whatever they want, of course, and I have no problem with that.

Let's just be clear that, far from being neutral about the geography issue, Book of Mormon Central promotes the Mesoamerican theory of Book of Mormon geography.

The Council of Springville

Last week, Book of Mormon Central announced a news item:

"Book of Mormon Scholars Meet to discuss Controversial Passages." The link went to a page titled "Textual Progress." The first line: "Book of Mormon Central convened a working group to consider the sense of meaning of a number of passages in the text whose interpretations have proven controversial." This is really great news for Mesoamerican supporters.

Mesoamerican supporters will be relieved to know the Mesoamerican scholars still agree with the Mesoamerican theory. Which is perfectly fine with me.

The first thing I thought of was a council that convened in
the year 325 for a similar purpose. The emperor Constantine 1 convened the first ecumenical council of the Christian church in ancient Nicaea. One summary of the council describes it this way:

"This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom, although previous councils, including the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem, had met before to settle matters of dispute. It was presided over by Hosius, bishop of Corduba who was in communion with the Pope.

"Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law."

Another perhaps cynical source points out that "Constantine was more interested in unity than in getting the correct doctrine of the trinity."

I'm calling this latest effort the Council of Springville. The conclave (their term) represented one faction of Book of Mormon geography proponents who support the limited geography Mesoamerican theory, and convened to attain consensus about how to interpret certain Book of Mormon geography passages.

Lest anyone jump to the conclusion I'm being critical, I'm not. Each of the scholars who participated in this latest conclave is a perfectly respectable, serious scholar. There is nothing wrong with the idea of a scholarly working group convened to interpret the scriptures. A lot of people admire the Nicene Council, too. After all, it produced one of the most influential documents in Christianity. Prominent LDS scholars have produced the most influential theory of Book of Mormon geography as well.

_______________

Those who support the Mesoamerican theory will appreciate that the scholars concluded that "The notion that River Sidon flows from north to south is not supported in the text. River Sidon flows from south to north just as Book of Mormon scholars have been saying since the 1800s." This is an excellent example of how to confirm one's biases. Again, not being critical. Just observing that if you take a group of scholars who already agree with a given proposition, and ask if they still agree with that proposition, the likelihood that they will affirm their previous beliefs is probably close to 100%.

(In the interest of full disclosure, there is another view, not represented at the conclave, that the text does not support a south to north flowing Sidon. But that view relies on the text, not the opinions of scholars, so it should be discounted accordingly.)

Mesoamerican supporters will also be glad to know that the scholars set out a hierarchy of classes of evidence. "In a relative hierarchy of classes of evidence, the text itself, subject to interpretation, must be primary. There has been no authoritative revelation on Book of Mormon geography in this dispensation. Revelation to the current Prophet could trump the text, but only if it carried the same degree of certainty as the words Joseph received through the seer stone."

It's reassuring to know that the current prophets, seers and revelators are bound by the limits imposed by the Council of Springville.

The conclave did not provide notes or a transcript, so it's not known whether actual experience--e.g., Joseph and Oliver physically visiting Mormon's records repository (Mormon 6:6) in the New York hill--would qualify as evidence. That possibility does not appear to have been considered by the conclave.

The scholars managed "to reach general agreement on some key points" in addition to the hierarchy of evidence and north-flowing river Sidon. Rest assured that each of the key points reaffirms the limited-geography Mesoamerican theory.

_______________

Someone asked me, "Why the Council of Springville? What's in Springville?"

Answer: Headquarters of Book of Mormon Central.

Introductory Post

There are many proposed settings for the Book of Mormon. This blog focuses on Central America, not from a critical perspective, but from a full disclosure perspective. Why Central America? I'll answer that in the last section of this post.

I think it's great that so many people, in so many places, have figured out ways to make the text meaningful to them. Surely that's one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon; i.e., the Lord wants us to apply the scriptures to ourselves. We can do this by relating to the stories and teachings in the scriptures.

We don't have to live in Israel to understand the parable of the sower because people sow seeds everywhere in the world.

In that sense, the setting for the Book of Mormon doesn't matter. We can learn from the lessons of Ammon and the king's flocks whether we live in Panama, Chile, China, or Nigeria.

As beneficial as that is, however, there is a risk that people might take the Book of Mormon as nothing more than a parable. In fact, many people--including active members of the Church--do consider the Book of Mormon as a work of inspired fiction. A book-length parable, but not authentic history.

The thesis of this blog is that the Book of Mormon is not merely a parable, but it is an actual history of actual ancient people who lived on this planet Earth. This means it took place in a real place.
_____________________

Among those who accept the actual history concept, there are two schools of thought about geography. Some think there is one point of convergence between the text and the modern world: i.e., the Hill Cumorah in New York.

Others think there are no points of convergence between the text and the modern world; i.e., the Hill Cumorah is not in New York.

The saying goes, the un-examined life is not worth living. The corollary I explore here is, the un-examined geography is not worth believing. Although this blog focuses on Central America, I want to outline the basic parameters we're dealing with.

Cumorah in New York 

Among those who agree the Hill Cumorah is in New York, there are variations. Some people think the entire history of the Book of Mormon took place in:

- New York.
- North America (not including Central America).
- North America (including Central America).
- the Western Hemisphere (including North, Central, and South America).

Cumorah not in New York

Among those who agree the Hill Cumorah is not in New York, there are variations. Some people think the entire history of the Book of Mormon took place in:

- Baja California.
- Mesoamerica (Central America)
- Panama
- Peru
- Colombia
- Chile
- Malaysia
- Africa
- many others
_____________________

Proponents of the various views have published books, articles, web pages, blogs, DVDs, PowerPoints, etc. The end result: there are two major theories of geography that seem to have generated the most discussion and analysis. These are:

The Mesoamerican theory

The North American theory (also called the Heartland and Moroni's America).
_____________________

This blog focuses on Central America because it has become the consensus among some LDS scholars. Although the Church is officially neutral on the question of Book of Mormon geography, Church media, manuals, and instruction have focused primarily on the Mesoamerican theory for decades.

The latest evidence of this is the creation of a web page titled Book of Mormon Central. The people there are fantastic, dedicated and sincere. No problem with them at all. However, the page is a front for the Ancient American Foundation, a long-time promoter of the Mesoamerican theory.  The page purports to be neutral, but as I'll show in subsequent posts, it strongly promotes the Mesoamerican theory to the exclusion (and denigration) of others.

Consider this blog to be the other side of the story.

Again, I emphasize this blog is not critical of the Central American or Mesoamerican theory. If people want to believe that theory, I have no problem with it.

To the extent I have a problem, it is with web pages that profess neutrality while pressing their thumbs squarely on the scales for the theory embraced by their management and funding sources.

Related to that, I think people who promote a theory need to be open about all the assumptions behind that theory and its implications, and own those.

So here goes.

False and misleading geography theories

I've had to delay my new blog for reasons I won't get into, but in the meantime, I wanted make another "final" post here.

The handful of LDS scholars who control LDS scholarly publications continue to insist that Cumorah is in Mexico, so I'm going to try again and make the issue as plain and simple as I can.

No one should be offended by this next paragraph; certainly I intend no offense by it. It's simply a statement of fact.

If Cumorah is in New York, then every geography that puts Cumorah somewhere else is, by definition, false and misleading. This includes so-called "abstract" geographies.

There can be differences of opinion about how the New York Cumorah fits; i.e., arguments can be made about a hemispheric model (Chile to New York), a continental model (Mesoamerica to New York), or a limited geography model (Florida to New York, Iowa to New York, Pennsylvania to New York, or even all within New York).

But if Cumorah is in New York, then it can't be anywhere else.

Which also means that any geography theory that puts Cumorah somewhere other than New York is false.

It's that simple. And that clear.

(I'll stipulate that if Cumorah is not in New York, then any geography that puts Cumorah in New York is itself false and misleading. I'm fine with that. IOW, everything hinges on Cumorah in New York. In my view, if Cumorah is not in New York, then it doesn't really matter where else it is.)
_______________________

One well-known LDS scholar (whom I respect and like, so I'm not criticizing him/her) observed that "All nineteenth-century writers on Book of Mormon geography apparently assumed that the place where Joseph Smith found the plates and the hill where the Nephites met their destruction were identical."

Now, why would they all "assume" that the Hill Cumorah was in New York?

The answer should be obvious, but apparently it's not, so I'll spell it out.

The first answer is Letter VII, which Oliver Cowdery wrote with the assistance of Joseph Smith. At the time, Joseph was President of the Church and Oliver was Assistant President. They wrote Letter VII as part of a series on Church history. They wrote Letter VII a few months before the Kirtland temple was completed; i.e., a few months before receiving the keys of the gathering and temple work directly from Moses, Elias, Elijah, and the Lord Himself.

So clearly (according to this handful of LDS scholars), Joseph and Oliver didn't know what they were talking about.

(Okay, some will accuse me of sarcasm there, but this handful of scholars actually want people to believe that Joseph and Oliver didn't know what they were talking about. They expect people to believe everything Oliver wrote, including what he transcribed as Joseph dictated and his accounts of Church history--except a few paragraphs in Letter VII that contradict their own theories. I discussed this in the lettrvii blog here.)
________________________

Our scholar continues, "Aside from this one point, however, the diversity of nineteenth-century opinion is striking."

Actually, what is striking about that statement is the phrase, "aside from this one point."

"This one point" is the most important point of all.

I repeat: If Cumorah is in New York, then every geography that puts Cumorah somewhere else is, by definition, false and misleading. This includes so-called "abstract" geographies.

Now, it's completely true that there is a diversity of opinion beyond the New York location of Cumorah; as I mentioned above, there are all kinds of possibilities with Cumorah being in New York.

But Cumorah is a pin in the map that no one should remove. In my opinion.
________________________

The second reason why all of Joseph's contemporaries accepted the New York setting for Cumorah is that Mormon's depository was there.

So far as I can tell, every LDS scholar accepts Mormon 6:6.

 6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

Everyone agrees that Cumorah was Moron's depository.

Wherever that depository is, that's where Cumorah is.

We have multiple accounts of Joseph and Oliver visiting this repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York. The most cited is Brigham Young's account given in a special conference in Farmington, Utah, in 1877. It's in the Journal of Discourses here, and I've written about it before, so I won't repeat that. By now, everyone should know what he said. If you don't, go to the link and read it for yourself. I'll mention another thing he said on that occasion in the next section below. Several others corroborated what Brigham said.

Separately from Brigham Young's account, the July 7, 1866, edition of The Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star ran a front-page article by Orson Pratt titled "The Hill Cumorah: Or the Sacred Depository of Wisdom and Understanding." I wrote a post about this on the lettervii blog.
___________________

In my opinion, there are no legitimate reasons for rejecting Letter VII and the many corroborating evidences for the New York Cumorah. So why is this handful of LDS scholars so adamant about doing so?

The only answer I've come up with so far is tradition and training.

This handful of LDS scholars have all learned from the same people, who in turn learned from the people who learned from the originators of the two-Cumorah theory and the limited geography Mesoamerican theory.

(Readers tell me they want me to name names, but personalities are beside the point and they're distracting because people apparently get offended when they are named. This is not about the people; it's about the theories. The origins, merits, and repercussions of the theories are what matter, not who came up with them originally or is perpetuating them today. It doesn't matter to me whether it is a professor or a Sunday School teacher or a home teacher who is perpetuating these theories; you need to understand what matters most. If you're in a situation where someone is talking about Book of Mormon geography, ask if they accept the New York Cumorah or not. Their answer will tell you what you need to know. You may get a response to the effect that "I don't have an opinion." If that's the case, then they shouldn't be saying anything about the geography at all, beyond explaining the issues; i.e., they should tell you about Letter VII and how a small group of LDS scholars rejects what Oliver Cowdery wrote, while others accept it, and so on. If they don't know about Letter VII, but they still teach anything about geography, then educate them.)

I know how alluring the two-Cumorah and related ideas are. I was taught them myself, and I believed them for many years. But they are fundamentally inconsistent with what Joseph and Oliver taught, and how can anyone living today know more about the topic than Joseph and Oliver?

Not to mention, what Joseph and Oliver taught makes more sense than the modern theories anyway.

I'm working on a chapter about the origins of the two-Cumorah theory that contains some quite surprising material that I didn't know until I dug into it. I think you'll like it. Maybe I'll post the chapter, or portions of it, on the new blog.

In the meantime, I want to end with this excerpt from Brigham Young's sermon in Farmington. It comes after he spoke about the depository. Remember, he said about the depository that "I take this liberty of referring to those things so that they will not be forgotten and lost." But to the handful of scholars who reject the New York Cumorah (and those who listen to them and perpetuate their teachings), the things Brigham Young taught are definitely forgotten and lost. (Or, worse, explained away as a vague vision of a mountain in Mexico.)

Brigham next spoke about the the foolishness of seeking after gold and silver instead of paying attention "to the legitimate business that God has given them to perform." People were spending time and money seeking treasure by mining, but Brigham said "what they did get was just sufficient to allure them."

The geography theories that put Cumorah anywhere but New York remind me of that. There's just enough to be alluring, but they are an enormous waste of time and effort and money.

Here's what Brigham said:

The Lord has permitted our enemies to come among us, who would destroy us if they could. They are only allowed to allure the minds of the foolish and those who lack judgment and who know not the things of God. But when we, as individuals and as a people, learn things as they are, we will find this fact—all truth is worthy and worth possessing, while all untruth is not worthy nor worth running after, nor working for, nor spending our lives for. The Gospel of life and salvation which God has revealed to us, incorporates all the systems there are. Every true principle and every true science, and every truth there is, are incorporated within the faith of the Latter-day Saints. This is something worth possessing, this is worth spending our time for; but the religions of the day, independent of their moral worth, are nothing but a myth, a shadow; there is no reality in them.

Based on past experience, no doubt someone will be offended that I republished Brigham's statement in this context. If you're offended, don't be. This isn't directed at you. I've explained before that I think this whole Mesoamerican thing originated with the overzealous efforts of a guy Joseph described as having a "rotten heart," who "would injure the Church as much as he could." Instead, let's take another look and get back to the origins.

In my view, we can rely on Joseph and Oliver. 

Mesoamerica vs Moroni's America

Those who care about Book of Mormon geography and historicity need to answer this question:

Is the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah in New York or not?

The answer is really a referendum on the credibility and reliability of Oliver Cowdery, who stated in no uncertain terms that it was in New York (See Letter VII). I have a detailed blog on that in the LetterVII blog today.

For me, it's a simple decision. I go with Oliver Cowdery.

I realize that others reject Oliver Cowdery because the New York Cumorah is incompatible with their preferred geography. There really is no other reason to reject Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII. 

True, there have been some poorly researched, bias-confirming articles about how Cumorah is a "clean hill" in terms of archaeology. But those were transparent efforts to give people a pretext to dismiss Oliver Cowdery. I've addressed those in detail.

I also realize that emotional attachments are not affected by facts. The geography references in the Book of Mormon are vague and fluid enough to accommodate just about anywhere on the planet, especially if you operate under the assumption that Joseph Smith translated the text wrong (e.g., he should have dictated headwaters of Sidon instead of head of Sidon). In a sense, this vagueness is an advantage. It allows people anywhere in the world to apply the text to their own lands. And, in a very real sense, it's true that the Lord's covenants apply to everyone everywhere.  

In that sense, an abstract map is as good as anything else.

People can believe whatever they want. But of course we have to recognize that a universal approach has the downside of transforming the Book of Mormon into a parable instead of an actual history of actual people who lived in an actual place. 

As a parable, the Book of Mormon may work for some people, but it lets people off the hook. People don't have to confront the harsh reality that Joseph Smith translated it by the power of God, and that the book is, literally, true.

As an actual history, the Book of Mormon forces people to confront this reality; i.e., that it could only exist because of divine intervention. Its origin makes it unique in human history.

I think the Book of Mormon can only fulfill its purpose if it is an actual history of actual people who lived in an actual place.

That's why I keep coming back to the geography question.

_______________

Once we're out of the parable realm, let's get real. 

There are dozens (maybe hundreds) of ideas about where the Book of Mormon took place. In my view, any idea that puts Cumorah outside of New York fundamentally undermines the credibility and reliability of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith, which in turn pushes the text over into the parable column.

I realize there are people who accept the literalness of the text and also believe it took place in Peru, Chile, Baja, Mesoamerica, Panama, Africa, Southeast Asia, and who knows where else. But when you examine the foundations for those theories, they boil down to a belief in a whole list of questionable assumptions that don't compensate for the rejection of Joseph and Oliver.

The Mesoamerican theory has one thing going for it: the 1842 Times and Seasons articles that, for over 140 years, gave scholars a pretext for claiming Joseph approved, or at least was interested in, the Mesoamerican setting. I've shown from abundant evidence and from a variety of perspectives that Joseph had nothing to do with those articles, but traditions die hard. 

The question of historicity and geography really boils down to Mesoamerica vs. Moroni's America.

Consequently, I'm going to continue examining the Mesomerican theory on a new blog I'll announce tomorrow.

Stay tuned.

Journey of Faith: The New World

Just when I thought I was finished with this blog, someone gave me a copy of the DVD Journey of Faith: The New World. I'd forgotten this DVD. This is a production of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University. It comes with a solicitation for donations featuring the BYU logo.

This DVD is a topic I haven't addressed before. I owe it to the faithful readers of this blog to discuss the DVD, but I'm posting my comments on the web page.