The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Sourcebook

For those interested in Book of Mormon geography, there's an excellent sourcebook available online here:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/the-geography-of-book-of-mormon-events-a-sourcebook/

John Sorenson assembled the material under the title,

The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Sourcebook

This remains the single best collection of the various geography theories and I recommend it. I refer to it often and cite it in some of my books.

As I always try to emphasize, John Sorenson is an excellent scholar, as this sourcebook shows. Here's his response to an important question:

What would be your advice to someone troubled by references in the Book of Mormon to things that seem anachronistic (for example Jaredite and Nephite metallurgy, pre-Columbian horses, etc.)?

I would say be humble and tentative about the claimed “facts” that we “know” about the ancient world. A good deal of the information that was “surely known” twenty, or forty, or sixty years ago is today passé and outdated. Wait awhile. We are lucky if we “know” 10 percent of what there is to know about ancient life. (Archaeologists, after all, are simply rummaging through the garbage of ancient folks and trying to make sense of it. With time, more garbage, more sense, paradoxically!) At the same time our (believers’) assumptions that we are “reading” the text clearly deserves to be thought through and re-thought through. We do well not to suppose that we are reading any ancient document fully and correctly.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/ask-the-scholar-sorenson-3/?keyword=matthew%20roper

He also wrote this, with which I fully agree. This is advice I have sought to follow ever since I first took a class with Sorenson 40 years ago. It would be even better if he (and the Maxwell Institute generally) took the advice in bold below:

Given your years of experience and significant contributions to the field, what would be your advice to a young student of Book of Mormon studies today?

Stay thoroughly familiar with the book in principle and action as the book itself teaches you. Prepare yourself deeply in some relevant  academic discipline; there is no such thing as a “field” of “Book of Mormon studies.” Continue to question your academic assumptions over the long haul. Trust that the Lord will provide you with necessary assistance (promptings and opportunities) when you are selflessly engaged in his work. Don’t set out to “prove” some point about the book that you have already concluded “must” be “right.” Let truth (or even Truth) be your aim, but do not expect to find TRUTH. Don’t be concerned with convincing any particular audience that someone else is “wrong” and you are “right.”

I wonder if he meant the last paragraph ironically. Certainly he and others at the Maxwell Institute have written a lot of material designed to convince readers they are "right" and others are "wrong." In fact, Sorenson himself encouraged that approach when he advocated that people in this field publish their work so it can be analyzed and critiqued. What sense does it make to do research and not advocate for it? Maybe he just meant that one should focus on pursuing the truth and not on trying to prove someone else is wrong. If so, I completely agree with him. Result-oriented research and straw-man arguments, combined with appeals to authority, are a waste of everyone's time. Yet I find this constantly in the materials published by FARMS and the Maxwell Institute.

Here's another question Sorenson answered.  

How do you account for early statements by Joseph Smith that seem to place Book of Mormon peoples and events in North America, such as Zelph’s burial ground, the hill Cumorah battleground in New York, etc.?

It is obvious that he had a lot to learn about  every subject as his life professed (cf. D&C 121:39, “We have learned by sad experience”). About Book of Mormon geography, he or a close associate wrote in the Times and Seasons in 1841, “We have [just] found another important fact about . . . the Book of Mormon. . . . The city of  Zarahemla stood upon this land [Central America],” as a result of their reading the 1841 book by John Lloyd Stephens. Moreover, as Ken Godfrey pointed out, statements by Joseph about “Zelph” are far from clear and may have had little concrete meaning about Book of Mormon geography. (“What is the Significance of Zelph in the Study of Book of Mormon Geography?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 [1999]: 70-79). Moroni did not “hide up” the plates his father gave him in “the hill Cumorah,” but for many years (Moroni 10:1) “wander[ed]” from that vicinity “for the safety of [his] own life” (Moroni 1:3) before he interred them. So the place where he ultimately buried them (in New York) was not where the final Nephite battle took place. These and other statements about geography attributed to Joseph Smith are best treated as preliminary hunches that he held subject to later correction after further thought and study (as of Stephens’s book).

I completely disagree with Sorenson here, not just because he got a date wrong, but because I wouldn't characterize Benjamin Winchester as a "close associate" in a positive sense. In my view, what Joseph learned from Moroni was more comprehensive than "preliminary hunches" and I think Joseph was pretty clear about that--even after reading the Stephens book when he wrote the Wentworth letter and edited out Orson Pratt's hemispheric/Mesoamerican theory.

But still, Sorenson has done some very helpful research. One must use critical thinking in evaluating his work (as well as the work of anyone else).

And it came to pass

From time to time I'll post some comments about Hebrew influences found in the text of the Book of Mormon. Here's one of the all-time classic greats. This one is from the Ensign--December 1992.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/12/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

Why is the phrase “and it came to pass” so prevalent in the Book of Mormon?

Donald W. Parry, instructor in biblical Hebrew, Brigham Young University, and Gospel Doctrine teacher, Grandview Fourth Ward, Provo Utah Grandview Stake. Mark Twain once joked that if Joseph Smith had left out the many instances of “and it came to pass” from the Book of Mormon, the book would have been only a pamphlet. (Roughing It, Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Co., 1901, p. 133.) There are, however, some very good reasons behind the usage of the phrase—reasons that further attest the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

The English translation of the Hebrew word wayehi(often used to connect two ideas or events), “and it came to pass,” appears some 727 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament. The expression is rarely found in Hebrew poetic, literary, or prophetic writings. Most often, it appears in the Old Testament narratives, such as the books by Moses recounting the history of the children of Israel.

As in the Old Testament, the expression in the Book of Mormon (where it appears some 1,404 times) occurs in the narrative selections and is clearly missing in the more literary parts, such as the psalm of Nephi (see 2 Ne. 4:20–25); the direct speeches of King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles.

But why does the phrase “and it came to pass” appear in the Book of Mormon so much more often, page for page, than it does in the Old Testament? The answer is twofold. First, the Book of Mormon contains much more narrative, chapter for chapter, than the Bible. Second, but equally important, the translators of the King James Version did not always render wayehi as “and it came to pass.” Instead, they were at liberty to draw from a multitude of similar expressions like “and it happened,” “and … became,” or “and … was.”

Wayehi is found about 1,204 times in the Hebrew Bible, but it was translated only 727 times as “and it came to pass” in the King James Version. Joseph Smith did not introduce such variety into the translation of the Book of Mormon. He retained the precision of “and it came to pass,” which better performs the transitional function of the Hebrew word.

The Prophet Joseph Smith may not have used the phrase at all—or at least not consistently—in the Book of Mormon had he created that record. The discriminating use of the Hebraic phrase in the Book of Mormon is further evidence that the record is what it says it is—a translation from a language (reformed Egyptian) with ties to the Hebrew language. (See Morm. 9:32–33.)

Quetzalcoatl

Sometimes people still tell me the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica because of the proof such as Quetzalcoatl. This is a persistent error with a long history. I remember hearing it a lot as a kid. Twelve years ago, people such as Joseph Allen and Chris Heimerdinger were using Quetzalcoatl as evidence of the Mesoamerican setting. Two of Heimerdinger's Tennis Shoes books deal with the "Feathered Serpent."

https://ldsmag.com/article-1-862/

Of course, there is not a smidgen of connection between the original Quetzalcoatl myth and the Book of Mormon. The "similarities" used to market package tours are based on the version of the myth perpetuated by the Spanish conquerors to justify their domination of the Mayans. 

Critics have had a field day with this. Rightfully so. Not even the people at FAIR believe that any more.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Relationship_to_Quetzalcoatl

(Now, if we can get FAIR to take another look at a lot of the other myths upon which the Mesoamerican theory relies, we'll be getting somewhere.) 

John Sorenson also had an excellent comment on the topic:

Many Latter-day Saints have drawn parallels between Mesoamerican lore concerning the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl and Jesus who appeared to the Nephites in 3 Nephi. Are these comparisons valid? How do your views differ from those of other Latter-day Saints?

The topic is complex, not least because there have been two or more “Quetzalcoatls” in “history.” Actually the Amerindians of south-central Mexico, from which most of the traditions have reached us, do not have a reality-based, consistent history. What we have instead is fragments of traditions (reported by Ixtlilxochitl, Sahagún, Veytia and others) that have some historical content, but there is not any discernible master narrative among them.

Latter-day Saint writers have sometimes tried to force a narrative sequence on them, but the results remain unconvincing in detail. One of the earliest attempts was by Hunter and Ferguson in their Ancient America and the Book of Mormon (1950), who equated the figure Hueman of Ixtlilxochitl’s writings with Mormon of the Book of Mormon, but in order to do so they arbitrarily dated Hueman to the fourth century, on no objective basis whatever.

Most professional Mesoamericanist scholars take the traditions as merely such, without supposing that an integrated history can be constructed from them. Thus they do not treat them as historically (that is, chronologically) significant in the way that archaeological findings potentially are. Nevertheless some of the traditions, in conjunction with Mesoamerican art history, do seem to cluster near the time of Christ. These I rely on in Mormon’s Codex as likely related to the Book of Mormon’s report of the appearance of Jesus Christ. Other details in the traditions may be associated only (or largely) with some of the later figures who were also called “Quetzalcoatl.” The uncertainties of historical timing of the statements about  these figures means, to me, that there will always be uncertainties in relation to the Book of Mormon account.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/ask-the-scholar-sorenson-3/?keyword=matthew%20roper

Nevertheless, look at this list of "similarities" used to promote "Book of Mormon" tours to Central America in the ldsmag link above:

Similarities of Christ and Quetzalcoatl include the following:

1. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl were recognized as creator of all things. (Mosiah 4:2; Saenz 1962:19, 40)
2. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl were born of virgins. (Alma 7: 10; Gamiz 95)
3. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl are described as being white or as wearing a white robe. (3 Nephi 11:8; Torquemada 47)
4. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl performed miracles. (3 Nephi 26:15; Sejourne 136-137)
5. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl taught the ordinance of baptism. (3 Nephi 11:23; Irwin 1963:170)
6. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl prophesied of future events. (Ixtlilxochitl: 40)
7. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl were universal as opposed to just being recognized as local gods. (3 Nephi 16: 1; Sejourne 1962)
8. A great destruction was associated with both Christ and Quetzalcoatl at exactly the same time period in history. (3 Nephi 8:5; Ixtlilxochitl: 40)
9. The cross was a symbol to both Christ and Quetzalcoatl. (3 Nephi 27:14; Irwin 1963:165)
10. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl sent out disciples to preach their word. (3 Nephi 12:1; Wirth 1978:55)
11. Both Christ and Quetzalcoatl promised they would come a second time. (2 Nephi 6:14; Sahagun 1:40)
12. A new star is associated with both Christ and Quetzalcoatl. (3 Nephi 1:21; Anales de Cuauhtitlan 7)

13. The children of both Christ and Quetzalcoatl will become lords and heirs of the earth. (4 Nephi 1: 17; Ixtlilxochitl: 40)



Here's a succinct explanation of the myth vs reality:

The myth

Most North Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the legend of how Conquistador, Hernán Cortés de Monroy y Pizarro, captured Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztecs, by pretending to be a bearded, white skinned god, who had returned to Mexico as prophesized. In some versions of the story, the Aztec astronomers had predicted that Quetzalcoatl would return in the month of One Reed. Cortés did arrive on the shores of Mexico in the month, One Reed. The story continues to state that the emperor of the Aztec Empire, Moctezuma II was paralyzed by the possibly that Cortés might be a returned god, and therefore waited too long to dispatch his massive army. Cortés then quickly conquered the Aztec empire by guile.

The reality

This story was probably fabricated by the Spanish after the conquest in order to make their brutal seizure of Mexico seem to be ordained by God. There was a story in Aztec literature about a Toltec king, who around 950 AD vowed to return after being expelled from his city. Nowhere is there substantial evidence that Moctezuma believed that de Soto was an invincible god. It was far more likely that Moctezuma assumed that 400+ Spanish soldiers were no threat to his massive army, but they had weapons and horses that might be useful to the Aztecs, if the Spanish became allies. As the saying goes . . . the winners always write the history books.

Also, there is no known pre-Spanish Conquest art in which the god Quetzalcoatl is portrayed as a European. It was quite common for Mexican rulers to wear goatee style beards. This was also the custom of the ancestors of the Creek Indians in the Southeastern United States. The Spanish did not understand the Aztec political structure. Moctezuma was not an absolute ruler, but a head of state. He ruled with the consent of a council of nobles. He could lose his job at any time, if the council felt that he was incompetent.

What actually happened was that Moctezuma treated the Spanish as diplomatic VIP’s. in order to avoid a repeat of large scale bloodshed as had occurred in the city of Cholula. Cortés learned that the leaders of Cholula planned to massacre the Spanish in their sleep. The Spanish launched a preemptive strike killing at least 3,000 persons in the city.

While de Soto was away with most of his men, fighting a Spanish army that planned to arrest him, his token garrison in Tenochtitlan murdered many nobles. The entire population rose in anger. They dethroned Moctezuma and elected a new emperor. Cortés arrived back in Tenochtitlan just as this crisis was flaring. The Aztecs came very close to massacring the Spaniards inside their city while they were trying to escape. Many Spaniards and Tlaxcalan allies died as they fought their way out of the city.

Most television documentaries give viewers the impression that Cortés immediately returned to Tenochtitlan with a larger army of allies and conquered the city. That was not what happened. In fact, while he was making his way back to Tenochtitlan, an Aztec army attacked his rear convoy containing the wounded, servants, Native concubines and Spanish wives. At least 400 of these were captured, fattened in wood cages, sacrificed at a temple in Zultepec, and eaten. Another 62 members of his rear guard who protected his escape were also sacrificed. The heads of the Spanish men and women were mounted on a rack in the Zultepec square.

Cortés returned to Tenochtitlan with approximately 200 soldiers and perhaps 20,000 Native allies. This army was still not large enough to storm the city, because it was accessed by causeways that restricted the number of soldiers, who could attack at any time. These causeways also restricted how many Aztecs could try to break blockade. While Cortés army blocked food from entering the city of approximately 100,000 people, smallpox swept through its defenders, killing well over half the population. After Tenochtitlan had become a biological killing field, the allies attacked the few remaining healthy troops and soon conquered the city.

h/t to http://www.examiner.com/article/quetzalcoatl-the-god-the-myth-the-reality-the-man

How Much Weight Can a Single Source Bear?

Here's my peer review of Matthew Roper's article in the Maxwell Institute's Journal 22/1 (2013). This is a useful paper because it evaluates the historical background of the idea that Joseph Smith identified Huntsville, Missouri, as the setting for the Book of Mormon city of Manti. Obviously this would be a problem for the Mesoamerican theory, so there's no question what the conclusion of the piece will be. I'm interested to see not whether Roper debunks the idea--a foregone conclusion--but how he does it.

I'm going to post the entire piece with my comments in red, as usual.

How Much Weight Can a Single Source Bear?

The Case of Samuel D. Tyler's Journal Entry

by Matthew Roper

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2330&index=5&keyword=matthew%20roper



FROM THE EDITOR:

One of the fundamental constituents of responsible scholarship is the ability to determine how much weight a single piece of evidence should receive. The Hebrew Bible teaches, "At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15). This article discusses how much weight can be put on a single witness, especially when that witness is contradicted by an equally plausible second witness. [At first glance, I liked this introduction because it suggests we're going to read an objective piece. But after reading Roper's article, I came back and found this introduction to be completely misleading. In the first place, there is not just a single piece of evidence; there are several pieces, such as other comments in Tyler's journal that support his credibility and reliability, as well as the context of who was going around appointing places as future stakes of Zion. In the second place, the first witness was not contradicted by the second witness. The second witness corroborated the first witness! That's exactly the point of Deut. 19:15. I hope no one read this comment from the Editor and passed by the article thinking they got the message. Then again, anyone reading the article without thinking critically would likely reach the same conclusion as the editor here. Argghhh!
:)
When I first took on this article, I thought maybe Roper would have some grounds for rejecting the Manti designation. I expected his approach to be outcome oriented, but he is so determined to reject any evidence of the North American setting that he not only overlooks obvious conclusions, but casts unfounded aspersions on Samuel D. Tyler. 
Here is the body of the paper:]

In 1838, the Kirtland Camp traveled from Kirtland, Ohio, to Far West, Missouri.¹ Two historical references associated with that group's activities as they passed through eastern Missouri have led some to conclude that the ancient city of Manti, spoken of in the Book of Mormon (Alma 56:14; 57:22; 58:1, 13, 25—28, 39), was located in that region or that the Prophet Joseph Smith had learned of this by revelation. A closer look at these sources sheds light on the question.² [This footnote refers to Roper's review of Prophecies and Promises. I peer reviewed this previously in this blog. Here's the link to the original article: 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/22/2/S00003-5176a03b6d5fc3Roper.pdf

That article consists mostly of Roper creating a straw man to attack, although he also makes some decent points that I acknowledge.]

The first reference is an entry from the journal of Samuel D. Tyler, an early member of the church who traveled with the Kirtland Camp. The Tyler journal entry for 25 September 1838 reads as follows:

We passed thro Huntsville, Co. seat Randolph Co. Pop. 450 & three miles further we bought 32 bu. of corn of one of the brethren who resides in this place (66) There are several of the brethren round about here & this is the ancient site of the City of Manti, which is spoken of in the Book of Mormon & this is appointed one of the Stakes of Zion and it is in Randolph Co. Mo. 3 miles west of the Co. seat.³

[Tyler's journal is available online here: https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE1959187]

The first issue is the source of Tyler's information. If that source was Joseph Smith, then this could be significant, [Why the conditional "could be" here? Roper's usual answer to that question: if Joseph Smith said anything inconsistent with the Mesoamerican theory, and it cannot be spun to somehow support or at least "leave room for" the Mesoamerican theory, then Joseph was speaking for himself and didn't know much about Book of Mormon geography anyway. Roper's approach is so deeply held that is crops up even in a throwaway line such as this.]  but if Tyler himself came to this conclusion or if he was merely reporting local hearsay, this would be less so. [Roper should know better than to suggest such conduct on Tyler's part. Roper himself will quote Elias Smith, who corroborates Tyler's account. As I ask in that section, is Roper proposing that these men independently made this up? Collaborated to make it up? They were writing in their daily journals, not for the National Enquirer. Were they trying to fool themselves? Their posterity? Any time an author seeks to undermine a source by offering an unfounded and indefensible suggestion such as this, you can be sure he has a weak argument. This should be a tip-off that Roper's argument will ultimately collapse, as it does below.] In this case, the source could not be Joseph Smith directly because the Prophet was not with the Kirtland Camp. [This is an irrational conclusion. Joseph could have directly told Tyler this at any point prior to Tyler's visit to the site. Maybe Roper meant to write "contemporaneously" instead of "directly," but for someone who spends so much time parsing terms, one would think Roper would be more precise.]  At the time Tyler recorded this information in his journal Joseph Smith was already in Far West several counties away, having previously fled Kirtland months before with other church leaders.⁴ What then was the source of this idea? Was it based upon something Joseph Smith had said at another time, or did it reflect speculation among the local brethren in Randolph County or the Kirtland Camp? How accurately was it reported? The Tyler journal does not provide an answer to these questions. [Was Tyler's journal otherwise accurate? I've looked at his journal; it was meticulous, especially considering the circumstances under which he wrote. He listed each day's distance traveled, described what they ate, the quality of the grass for their beasts, etc. At one point (September 26, 1838), he wrote "Four of the seven counsellors [sic] were in this & two absent, and one [Elder Young] has stopped back on the way. Now I say there was four, if I was rightly informed." That's direct evidence that Tyler was sensitive to being "rightly informed" about the things he wrote. He wrote this on the back of the very page on which he mentioned Manti. Would he have written his comment about Manti if he questioned whether he had been "rightly informed" about that? A more reasonable inference, based on Tyler's own meticulousness and caution, is that the Manti identification was so commonly known that he saw no need to specifically attribute it.] 

The Manuscript History of the Church might seem to lend support to the information in the Tyler journal entry. The relevant entry for 25 September 1838 can be found on page 829 of that document and reads as follows:

The camp passed through Huntsville in Randolph County which has been appointed as one of the stakes of Zion, and is the ancient site of the City of Manti and pitched tents at Dark Creek, Salt Licks, seventeen miles. It was reported to the camp that one hundred and ten men had volunteered from Randolph and gone to Far West to settle difficulties.⁵

This entry, however, was actually written down after the events in question by Willard Richards, who used the available sources. Comparative evidence strongly suggests that the 25 September 1838 entry of the Manuscript History was based on the account in Tyler's journal. Evidence of this is italicized in the two documents below.

TYLER JOURNAL 25 SEPTEMBER 1838

MANUSCRIPT HISTORY, 1843?

We passed thro Huntsville, Co. seat Randolph Co. Pop. 450 & three miles further we bought 32 bu. of corn of one of the brethren who resides in this place (66) There are several of the brethren round about here & this is the ancient site of the City of Manti, which is spoken of in the Book of Mormon & this is appointed one of the Stakes of Zion & it is in Randolph Co. Mo. 3 miles west of the Co. seat. We progressed on 3 miles further to Dark Creek, Salt Licks, & pitched . . . 17 miles. 733 + 17 = 750 Miles. . . . We hear that 110 men have volunteered to save being drafted & have gone from this Co. to Far West to settle some dis- turbances between the Missourians & Mormons & that they are collecting forces from many other Co's to settle perhaps they know not what themselves.

The camp passed through Huntsville in Ran- dolph County which has been appointed as one of the stakes of Zion, and is the ancient site of the City of Manti and pitched tents at Dark Creek, Salt Licks, seventeen miles. It was reported to the camp that one hundred and ten men had vol- unteered from Randolph and gone to Far West to settle difficulties.

The Manuscript History entry is clearly dependent on Tyler's journal entry; however, as a later, derivative source, it has no primary evidentiary value in supporting Tyler's 1838 statement. [This is a good point--one Roper should apply to his research about the use of the name Zarahemla across from Nauvoo. He would have avoided the mistakes he made in that analysis had he done so. Regarding this entry, Roper's ellipses omit as much of Tyler's original material as Roper includes here. The Richards history is much more concise than Roper's table portrays. This is significant because it means Richards extracted only what he deemed important. Would Richards have retained the Manti reference if this was his only source? It's an important claim, to be sure. We have no evidence that Richards verified that ancient Manti was here, but it seems plausible, even likely, he would have. Particularly when everyone in 1843 supposedly believed Zarahemla was in Guatemala... ] When this portion of the Manuscript History was first published in the Millennial Star in 1854, the entry read essentially the same as it did in Richards's earlier handwritten manuscript.⁶ When church historian Andrew Jenson later published it in his Historical Record in 1888, he added, without explanation, the words which the Prophet said immediately before the part of the sentence about Manti, making it read "which the Prophet said was the ancient site of the city of Manti" although this was not in the original manuscript.⁷ This has puzzled some subsequent students of the Book of Mormon. In 1892 George Reynolds's A Dictionary of the Book of Mormon: Comprising Its Biographical, Geographical and Other Proper Names was published with appendices written by Janne Sjodahl. Sjodahl cited the Manuscript History passage from Jenson's Historical Record and then noted, "Whether 'the ancient site of Manti' refers to the Manti in the Book of Mormon is a question that has been debated. Some prefer to regard it as reference to a later city of Manti, built by descendants of Nephi in Missouri" rather than the original city mentioned in the Lehite record.⁸ In 1938, Joseph Fielding Smith published an article in the Deseret News in which he cited the passages from the Tyler journal and the Manuscript History in support of a Missouri location for the Book of Mormon city of Manti, which was subsequently reprinted in a compilation of his earlier writings.⁹

[This is good research on Roper's part. This sequence reminds me of how Winchester's Times and Seasons articles acquired the aura of prophetic authority because "some people" purport to have shown Joseph Smith wrote them. At any rate, I agree with Roper that subsequent commentaries and additions are irrelevant in assessing Tyler's journal entries.] 
In contrast to the Tyler journal, another independent contemporary source provides a different view. Elias Smith, a cousin to Joseph Smith, also kept a journal of the travels and activities of the 1838 Kirtland Camp. On this same day, he recorded:

We came through Huntsville the county seat of Randolph where we were told before we arrived there we should be stopped but saw nothing of the kind when we came through the town and heard no threats whatever, but all appeared friendly. 1½ miles west of Huntsville we crossed the east branch of Chariton and 1½ miles west of the river we found Ira Ames and some other brethren near the place where the city of Manti is to built and encamped for the night on Dark creek 6 miles from Huntsville.¹⁰

Elias Smith, significantly, did not equate the land near Huntsville, Missouri, with the ancient location of Manti but indicated that this was the place where a future settlement named after the ancient one was "to be built." [Hmm. This is not inconsistent with Tyler's statement. Both could easily be accurate; i.e., Huntsville was both the location of the ancient Nephite city of Manti, and the location of a future city of Manti. Plus, Tyler's account also looked to the future. He wrote "this is appointed one of the Stakes of Zion." How could it become a stake if there was no city? Elias Smith's statement actually confirms the second part of Tyler's statement (thereby corroborating it), but says nothing about the first part. Instead of the contradiction Roper implies, the Smith statement supports the Tyler statement.]  

When B. H. Roberts prepared the History of the Church for publication, he reviewed original sources upon which the Manuscript History was based and revised parts of the narrative accordingly. Roberts was able to utilize the Elias Smith account instead of the portion of the Manuscript History that had been based upon the Tyler journal. The entry for 25 September 1838 as first published in 1905 and all subsequent editions of the History of the Church says that the village of Huntsville, Missouri, was "near the place where the city of Manti is to be built" and omits any suggestion that the location of the Book of Mormon city was known.¹¹ [So B.H. Roberts did the same thing Jenson, et al, did with the Tyler statement. B.H. Roberts also "has no primary evidentiary value."] 

Based on the Smith account, in light of the above, it would appear that the Missouri Saints in 1838 anticipated, at least initially, the establishment of a future stake and a settlement in the region that they would call Manti. The original sources upon which this idea is based, however, do not attribute these plans to Joseph Smith, nor do they sustain the view that the name of the proposed future settlement was based upon any revelation on the question of Book of Mormon geography. [Who besides Joseph Smith was going around "appointing" places as Stakes of Zion or as sites for future cities? Unless Roper can point to someone else doing such appointing, his assertion here is completely unpersuasive and contrary to the facts. Both Tyler and Elias Smith claim knowledge of future plans involving Manti. Who could be the source of those plans if not Joseph Smith? Roper's argument essentially requires that Elias Smith and Samuel Tyler independently (or the "Missouri Saints" collectively) somehow came up with the Manti connection all on their own. Apparently that's what one must believe to adhere to the Mesoamerican theory... Back to Smith and Tyler. When could they have learned of such future plans except prior to their arrival at Huntsville? Elias Smith wrote "we were told before we arrived there we should be stopped." These men were briefed ahead of their journey. They both recognized Huntsville as a landmark worth mentioning in their journal. They knew it was significant in connection with Manti as a future stake/city, but only Tyler (whose journal was more precise and detailed) recorded that it was also the site of the ancient Nephite city of Manti. The totality of this evidence leads directly to Joseph Smith as the source. No one else could have, or would have, designated the spot as a future stake/city, and if he did that, then Tyler's statement about the ancient city could have come from no one else.] 

Readers of the Book of Mormon, in the absence of prophetic revelation on the location of this Book of Mormon city, [This is Roper's normal code for "Joseph Smith guessed, used his own judgment, and/or didn't know what he was talking about whenever he tied Book of Mormon geography to North America] must, as always, ground their interpretations in the Book of Mormon text itself, "drawing all the information possible from the record which has been translated for our benefit."¹²[No argument here. This is axiomatic, but completely unrelated to the rest of the article. And it leads me to wonder, why did Roper concoct a flawed study to "prove" Joseph Smith wrote the Times and Seasons articles if he really believes what he wrote in this sentence?]

[One concluding note. Several others have tried to debunk the Tyler journal entry. Roper's piece here is the most scholarly accumulation of evidence, although he should have looked at Tyler's journal beyond the oft-quoted section. Simply reading the next page would have revealed how obsessed Tyler was with accuracy. At any rate, unfortunately a google search of Tyler's name brings up this article and several others, all attacking the credibility of this man's journal. I find that shameful. Here are a couple of the others who are piling on:

http://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Manti%20in%20MO.htm
http://nephicode.blogspot.com/2014/05/was-land-of-promise-manti-in.html
Let's hope we get the record straight on this, as on so many other details regarding the Book of Mormon.]

Notes

Matthew Roper holds a BA degree in history and an MA degree in sociology from Brigham Young University. He is a research scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. His current research focuses on questions of Book of Mormon authorship and the intellectual history of Latter-day Saint scripture.

1. The Kirtland Camp refers to a company of Kirtland Saints who traveled to Missouri in 1838 and should not be confused with the 1834 Zion's Camp.

2. See Matthew Roper, "Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography," FARMS Review 22/2 (2010): 58—62.

3. Journal of Samuel D. Tyler, 25 September 1838, MS 1761, Church Historians Department, Salt Lake City, emphasis added.

4. Joseph Smith Journal, 25 September 1838, in Joseph Smith Papers: Journals Volume 1: 1832—1839, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Richard Jensen (Salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press, 2008), 329.

5. Manuscript History, 25 September 1838, 829, emphasis added.

6. "History of Joseph Smith," Millennial Star 16/19 (13 May 1854): 296.

7. "Kirtland Camp," Historical Record 7/7 (July 1888): 601, emphasis added.

8. George Reynolds, A Dictionary of the Book of Mormon: Comprising Its Biographical, Geographical, and Other Proper Names, Together with Appendices by Elder Janne M. Sjodahl (Salt Lake City: Parry, 1892), 304.

9. Joseph Fielding Smith, "Where Is the Hill Cumorah?" Deseret News, Church Section, 10 September 1938, 6; Smith, Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956), 3:239.

10. Elias Smith, "Journal of the camp of the Seventies during their journey from Kirtland to Far West," 25 September 1838, MS 4952, folder 2, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, emphasis added.

11. History of the Church, 3:144.

12. George Q. Cannon, Editorial, Juvenile Instructor (1 January 1890); reprinted in the Instructor 73/4 (April 1938): 160.

You have not adequately addressed the literature

The other day Matt Roper of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship told me "You have not adequately addressed the literature on these questions, including a great deal that I have written myself." In that same exchange, he declined to respond to any of the facts in my book, The Lost City of Zarahemla, and has refused further collaboration.

Let's see. I first met with Matt in January to discuss his article that purported to prove Joseph Smith wrote the Times and Seasons articles linking the Book of Mormon to Guatemala. As a reminder, here it is: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2891&index=7

So I not only specifically addressed this article on this blog and in my book, but I visited Matt three times, in person, all on my own initiative, to discuss it with him. His response was to stonewall, make promises he wouldn't keep, and then accuse me of not addressing the literature.

Which is pretty much what everyone told me to expect.

Don't get me wrong. I like Matt, I think he's a capable scholar, and I'm sure he has good intentions. But as I've shown in numerous posts on the blog, the articles he's published need a lot of work.

In my view, he has an impossible task. They're defending an impossible theory, in my opinion. He and his collaborators are doing everything they can to keep the Mesoamerican theory alive. Maybe they don't realize it's on life support. Certainly they refuse to acknowledge it is based on a faulty premise--or at least they're not admitting it yet. And, to be sure, they give me a lot of great material for my presentations.

But my objective in all of this is to reach consensus. How is that possible when one side refuses to engage?

I'll continue pushing on the string, regardless. On this blog I've done peer reviews of several of Matt's articles. I'll continue doing so, I suppose, although the point I'm making about confirmation bias and result-oriented research has already been documented many times. Maybe one of these days I'll run across an article that holds up, with rational arguments, well-researched facts, and sound conclusions. I'll be sure to put it in the headline if I do.

:)