Wayne May — Book of Mormon Archaeology in North America


bytor2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

I participate in another LDS forum where content like this frequently gets ridiculed and shouted down by very vocal LDS people who insist the main Nephite lands were instead in Central America.  It's surprising how heated disagreements can get over Book of Mormon geography.

 

I haven't reached a conclusion of my own yet, and still have thirty minutes left to go in brother May's initial presentation, but I prefer the more open-minded and charitable approach of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

 It's surprising how heated disagreements can get over Book of Mormon geography.

 

 

Oh I totally agree! People sometimes forget that where the Nephites lived (while important) is hardly the foundation of our church. 

People also think that any comment on the Book of Mormon geography is an attack on the church. No! Just arguing for the "limited geography model" or saying the Book of Mormon world might be smaller than we originally thought is hardly an assault on the faith! 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For many reasons I was  a proponent of the "Heartland" model before there even was such a thing. We just called it the "One Cumorah" theory (as opposed to the "Two Cumorah" theory fostered by FARMS) before Meldrum and May came along. 

 

But I love both of them (along with Bruce Porter) for all the work they've done. I've met Meldrum and May numerous times and they are both good, honest men in my estimation; a claim I can't make for a few of their professional detractors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago I ran across Barry Fell's "America BC" and it piqued my interest in pre-Columbus America. Over those years I've watched some of the pro-S. America vs pro N. America BoM war of words... :rolleyes:  I liked the presentation (some of the info I'd seen before in other places) although I don't think it will quell the word war. I guess for me I've always more or less felt the BoM was in N. America but really that was in small consequence to the BoM's being true. And living in the deep south that can get a white hot word war going pretty quick. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have highly favored the Meso-American model, however, one question that the Meso-American model has left me wondering about were the promises in the Book of Mormon that strongly imply the United States as the promised land or the land that would be protected and kept free if the people as a whole obeyed God. In no other country on the American continent are we able to see the promises made in the Book of Mormon to the inhabitants of this land as fully fulfilled as in the United States.

 

1 Nephi 2:20

 

 

 

And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.

 

Ehter 2:10

 

 

 

For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

 

1 Nephi 13:30

 

 

 

Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the aland of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren.

 

So, I have concluded that the choice land above all other lands is not the whole American continent, north and south. The blessings and promises and the descriptions of the blessings given in the Book of Mormon do not support a Meso-American land or country.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

-Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem for any north American model, including Meso-America, is that if we accept the Joseph Smith statement in Teachings that Lehi landed near Valpariso, Chile is how did the Nephites etc get to North America?

The strait of Darien (Panama) has always been impassible. There's no way a major population could have migrated north.

I'm a fan of South America as a base for the BofM activities. Certainly high civilizations lived there.

Of course the problem with that is how did the plates get to NY?

Maybe a small group of surviving Nephites could have gone that far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem for any north American model, including Meso-America, is that if we accept the Joseph Smith statement in Teachings that Lehi landed near Valpariso, Chile is how did the Nephites etc get to North America?

I'm not aware of any Joseph Smith statement regarding Chile. Can you provide one?

 

Long after Joseph's death, Orson Pratt did make two statements about Chile in the Journal of Discourses. Is this what you are referring to?

 

http://journalofdiscourses.com/12/65

http://journalofdiscourses.com/14/44

 

Elder Pratt said: "As near as we can judge from the description of the country contained in this record the first landing place was in Chile, not far from where the city of Valparaiso now stands."

 

It doesn't sound, from that statement, that Elder Pratt is speaking from inspiration. Based on his own words, it sounds more like mere intellect at work. So I wouldn't put too much weight into such later statements as this, when weighed against Joseph earlier statements to the contrary.

 

That said, I respect your right to believe as you wish.

Edited by hagoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any Joseph Smith statement regarding Chile. Can you provide one?

 

OK, I think I found the source which some think came from Joseph.

 

"...there is a document in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, one of Joseph's counselors...which...has been attributed to Joseph...: The course that Lehi traveled from the city of Jerusalem to the place where he and his family took ship, they traveled nearly a south southeast direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of North latitude, then nearly east to the sea of Arabia then sailed in a south east direction and landed on the continent of South America in Chili thirty degrees south of latitude." (Cheesman 1978, 22)

 

One recent author concluded: "Considering how specific this statement is -- giving the degree of latitude for both the location where Lehi set sail and the place where he landed -- it seems much more likely that it was the inspiration of Orson Pratt than of Joseph Smith."

 

I can't speak to how accurate that conclusion is, but there is no statement known to be from Joseph (that I'm aware of) that refers to Chile.

 

By way of interest, there is also an article in the Times and Seasons, 15 Sept. 1842 which asserts that Lehi and his party landed a little south of the isthmus of Darius (Panama). However, two weeks prior, Joseph clearly announced he was in hiding and had temporarily handed his administrative duties over to others. Apparently, those administrative duties included overseeing the newspaper. (That prior announcement was subsequently printed in the same September 15th issue of the Times and Seasons as a separate article.) So the reference to Lehi landing a little south of Panama is apparently not from Joseph either.

 

A few weeks later, on November 1st, there was no issue of the Times of Season produced, even though it was supposed to be issued twice a month, on the 1st and on the 15th of each month. Two weeks later, Joseph officially admitted in that paper: "I beg leave to inform the subscribers of the Times and Seasons that it is impossible for me to fulfill the arduous duties of the editorial department any longer. The multiplicity of other business that daily devolves upon me renders it impossible for me to do justice to a paper so widely circulated as the Times and Seasons. I have appointed Elder John Taylor, who is less encumbered and fully competent to assume the responsibilities of that office..." As an example of how busy he had otherwise been, between Sept 15th and Nov 1st, there isn't a single article signed as being from him as the acting editor.

 

From all of this, it appears Joseph was simply too busy with more important duties to act as editor of a newspaper during late 1842, so I wouldn't put too much weight on anything published in the Times and Seasons during those months. Wikipedia asserts that even during the few months when Joseph was listed as the official editor, the "operation was actually run by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff."

 

Take it for what you will.

 

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mr Marklin,

 

I've read that book more than once, and I don't recall any reference to Chile. I even just did a digital search of an online version, and came up with nothing on "Chile" or "Chili". And in my reading elsewhere, I've never heard anyone cite that book as saying Lehi landed in Chile.

 

After a little extra digging this morning, I did find a different 1914 book, by Franklin Richards, which apparently believed Joseph taught such a thing. If you look at the quote in the link, however, you'll see that he is actually citing the document from Frederick G. Williams, which I referred to in an earlier post. Franklin Richards and his co-author (or whoever revised that 1914 edition) apparently decided to ascribe Frederick Williams' writing to Joseph, for reasons which he/they did not disclose.

 

It should be of some interest that after that book was published, the Church came out with a statement clarifying that we shouldn't make too much of a deal about Frederick G. Williams' document. Or, as Wikipedia puts it:

"There is no proof that William’s unsigned, undated writing represents a revelation given to Joseph Smith. An official statement by the LDS Church discourages Church members from making too much of the Williams document."

 

That said, believe what you wish.

Regards.

Edited by hagoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found an interesting statement by Elder John Widtsoe: "…out of the studies of faithful Latter-day Saints may yet come a unity of opinion concerning Book of Mormon geography."

 

Apparently, rather than idly expecting someone in leadership to reveal Nephite geography for us someday, it might instead be hoped that we each study the matter out for ourselves, and then follow the counsel here.

 

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Elder Widtsoe's statement provides the why. (Your mileage may vary.)

 

I don't read any implication in His statement that coming to a conclusion about this matter is of any importance whatsoever. I did infer such from your comment.

 

We may, indeed, come to a unified conclusion someday when and if archaeology reveals enough of the matter. That doesn't translate to any requirement or "hope" that we need study the matter, or concern ourselves with it one whit.

 

Other than the broad strokes (a la, it was the American continent), and a genuine curiosity, I don't consider a knowledge of where the Nephites and Lamanties actually lived important to any degree, nor do I feel compelled to seek such learning by study or faith, nor do I feel it necessary or appropriate to exhort others to do so.

 

But perhaps I read too much into your comment.

 

Incidentally, I have quite appreciated your other posts and insights here in this thread...lest you think I'm just being contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone here read Sorenson's work on Meso-America and how it could related to the Book of Mormon's geography?

A few years ago, I read his earlier work, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. I haven't read his more recent books yet (Mormon's Map, and Mormon's Codex). 

 

If you have read any of them, what were your impressions?

Edited by hagoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't read any implication in His statement that coming to a conclusion about this matter is of any importance whatsoever. I did infer such from your comment.

 

We may, indeed, come to a unified conclusion someday when and if archaeology reveals enough of the matter. That doesn't translate to any requirement or "hope" that we need study the matter, or concern ourselves with it one whit....

 

Perhaps the context of Elder Widtsoe's statement might better explain what I inferred from what he said.

His statement was made in the foreword to Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Cumorah-Where? (1947)  (The last poster in this thread asked about Sorenson. By way of interest, Sorenson cites this same Elder Widtsoe statement in his more recent "Mormon's Map.")

 

In Cumorah-Where, Ferguson said, "The Book of Mormon, although primarily important for its theology and doctrines, is in a large measure historical... Geography has always been important to the understanding of history. It is important to the Book of Mormon student... If we misconstrue the geography of the Book of Mormon, we may make an entirely consistent record appear inconsistent with itself and with factual findings of science. In some instances worthwhile persons may be dissuaded by our own errors from making a complete investigation of Mormonism. Let us now examine the entire problem, 'Cumorah -- Where?'  Data supporting the New York view will be first presented... The Middle American view will then be set out... The weaknesses in the New York view and in the Mexican view will then be discussed. The reader will be left to draw his own conclusions."

 

(For whatever reason, Ferguson chose not to address the Chilean model mentioned earlier in this thread.)

 

From that fuller context of Elder Widtsoe's statement, perhaps you can see how I see his words as an invitation for faithful investigation, (although something admittedly of lesser importance than other things to study/ponder in scripture). For they form the foreword to a book about Book of Mormon geography.

 

I infer the same from his counsel a few years later in the Improvement Era: "Out of diligent, prayerful study, we may be led to a better understanding of times and places in the history of the people who move across the pages of the divinely given Book of Mormon."

 

In both instances, Elder Widtsoe said "may", which implies, in my view, the hope of a worthwhile outcome. So does that answer your question as to what I'm inferring from what he said, in context?

 

But perhaps we read different things out of what he said. If so, please share. What do you understand him to be saying?

Edited by hagoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the context of Elder Widtsoe's statement might better explain what I inferred from what he said.

His statement was made in the foreword to Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Cumorah-Where? (1947)  (The last poster in this thread asked about Sorenson. By way of interest, Sorenson cites this same Elder Widtsoe statement in his more recent "Mormon's Map.")

 

In Cumorah-Where, Ferguson said, "The Book of Mormon, although primarily important for its theology and doctrines, is in a large measure historical... Geography has always been important to the understanding of history. It is important to the Book of Mormon student... If we misconstrue the geography of the Book of Mormon, we may make an entirely consistent record appear inconsistent with itself and with factual findings of science. In some instances worthwhile persons may be dissuaded by our own errors from making a complete investigation of Mormonism. Let us now examine the entire problem, 'Cumorah -- Where?'  Data supporting the New York view will be first presented... The Middle American view will then be set out... The weaknesses in the New York view and in the Mexican view will then be discussed. The reader will be left to draw his own conclusions."

 

(For whatever reason, Ferguson chose not to address the Chilean model mentioned earlier in this thread.)

 

From that fuller context of Elder Widtsoe's statement, perhaps you can see how I see his words as an invitation for faithful investigation, (although something admittedly of lesser importance than other things to study/ponder in scripture). For they form the foreword to a book about Book of Mormon geography.

 

I infer the same from his counsel a few years later in the Improvement Era: "Out of diligent, prayerful study, we may be led to a better understanding of times and places in the history of the people who move across the pages of the divinely given Book of Mormon."

 

In both instances, Elder Widtsoe said "may", which implies, in my view, the hope of a worthwhile outcome. So does that answer your question as to what I'm inferring from what he said, in context?

 

But perhaps we read different things out of what he said. If so, please share. What do you understand him to be saying?

 

That is reasonable.

 

It's actually a bit interesting from that perspective, and plays into testimony paths, etc. Like being friendly/nice to people so they'll join the church. If they join ONLY for this reason, they are on a sandy foundation. But if that kindness leads them to the spiritual investigation and thereby their testimony is built/based upon the witness of the Spirit, as it must be to stand, then the kindness path becomes a tool that is invaluable.

 

In that regard I can acquiesce to the idea. The more evidence,support and knowledge we can put beyond the Book of Mormon, the more we open up potential paths for investigators.

 

However, I see a dark side to the concept as well, and there is a great deal of controversy that stems from the sad fact that, apparently, a large (to some level) portion of Latter-day Saints have testimonies that are built on the wrong things. And that makes me wonder, to an extent, about even providing false paths, and perhaps plays into why the Lord doesn't guide us to more evidence of the Book of Mormon or other aspects of the "truth". The only way anyone can know the truth is through revelation by the Spirit, and that thinking may well contend for a de-emphasize-other-paths approach to bringing people to the gospel. As in -- if you want to know the Book of Mormon is true, then read it and pray about it. Then you can study the history and geography and whatnot if it interests you to your heart's content. But until you "know" it's true from the proper path, these other things hold less value.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share