Wayne May — Book of Mormon Archaeology in North America

[hagoth]

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.

Agreed.

 

...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.

Agreed.

Edited May 24, 2015 by hagoth

[mrmarklin]

Here is the edition of JS teachings I was referring to (I think!):

1. In 1938, Joseph Fielding Smith and his assistants in the Historian’s Office of the church published, as part of a compilation, an article giving readers the impression that Joseph Smith taught that Lehi “had landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien”. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 267) The Isthmus of Darien (Panama) is thousands of miles north of Valparaiso, Chile. The popular LDS work quotes an unsigned Times and Seasons article that was published during a “short season” when the official editor of the newspaper (Joseph Smith) was publicly absent. (Times and Season, Sept. 15, 1842, 3:921-922; see also D&C 127, 128) The newspaper article, in fact, mentioned Joseph Smith in the third person and there is no proof that the piece was authored by him. (Reynolds, George, Commentary on the Book of Mormon (1955), Vol. 3, pp. 330-331

This from Wikipedia.  The Chile theory was fairly rampant at this time apparently because of the Williams and Pratt statements.  I went on my mission to SA and we certainly taught that the natives there were descendants of B of M peoples.  Was that a lie??  I don't like to think so.......:-)

[Vort]

If the Lehite colony arrived in the Americas 2600 years ago, as I believe they did, and survived as the Nephite civilization for 1000 years, the odds are that most or all "native Americans" (i.e. "American Indians") are descendants of Book of Mormon peoples.

[mrmarklin]

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

 

 

I have the book, but I must say the scholarship is not very convincing as to location.  In an early edition, he even had an arrow showing migration from South America to North America.  Subsequent editions got away from that as the isthmus is impassable.

 

The best case I've seen made in Meso-America is the analysis of the culture and customs extant now and at the time the Spanish first arrived.  That and the fact that they had writing.  Other cultures were deficient here.

[The Folk Prophet]

Subsequent editions got away from that as the isthmus is impassable.

 

Why would the isthmus being impassable in our times, specifically with a clear description in the book of extreme changes to the land, water levels, etc., at the time of Christ's death, be relevant to said theory?

[Vort]

Numerous careful readings of the Book of Mormon have convinced me that the primary New World narrative takes place in an area no more than a couple of hundred miles from north to south, and probably significantly less than that. The South-America-as-Nephi-North-America-as-Zarahemla-Bountiful-Desolation idea just isn't plausible.

[Guest MormonGator]

Numerous careful readings of the Book of Mormon have convinced me that the primary New World narrative takes place in an area no more than a couple of hundred miles from north to south, and probably significantly less than that. The South-America-as-Nephi-North-America-as-Zarahemla-Bountiful-Desolation idea just isn't plausible.

Absolutely, 100% agree with you. I've always thought the BoM takes place in a very small area .

[Traveler]

I will add some thoughts - but before I do, I want to make clear that I have not received any personal revelation on this subject even though I have sought spiritual guidance.  My opinions are therefore based primarily on empirical evidence.  I realize that this approach to some "unsettled" things really agitates some that for what ever reason do not like dealing with or discussing empirical evidences.  There is a glaring problem with looking at empirical evidences - there really is not enough "knowns" to validate a conclusion.  But there are some things that to me make sense.  First from scripture of the Book of Mormon

 

1. I do not think that we are talking about a small area - I think we are looking for a civilization with many large cities that utilized all possible inhabited area.  See such scriptures as Helaman 3:8 4 Nephi 1:23.  In addition there was a civilization that presided the Nephits that also covered the land - but in a different location.  Ether 10:4  - Keep in mind these civilization overlapped but never encountered each other.

 

2.  Both civilizations were advanced - perhaps as much as any on earth.  One of the great mysteries of the Mayan civilization is that they had advanced their science to the point that they knew the size (curvature) of the earth and the ability to navigate to any place on earth and return.  The mystery of the Mayan is that it to date it is unexplainable how their technology was developed and is out of place with other civilizations (such as ancient Egypt or China) in the world by several hundred years.  Plus they do not seem to have a sufficient time or era to develop their sciences.

 

3.  There is a third group that also left Jerusalem about the time of Lehi - generally it is believed that this group traveled and sailed west to arrive in the Americas.  Their civilization was discovered by the Nephits before the Nephits discovered the Jaredites

 

4. From my personal studies it seems possible (probable and likely) that King Solomon traded with the Americas - This may (I speculate) mean that the Mulekites could have known quite precisely where they were going when they fled Jerusalem and intended to preserve the blood line of kings that included king Solomon.

 

5. I speculate that Nephi sailed west from "Bountiful" to arrive in America - though the prevailing thought is that he sailed east.  The prevailing winds and currents are more conducive to westerly travel in the southern hemisphere (among other things).

 

6. I find it interesting that snow is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon while in the Americas.  Snow is a known term in Biblical scriptures and is mentioned by Nephi as a metaphor before coming to America.  A metaphor that would never again be used by Nephits.

 

I do not know where Zerahemnah is - but I think I know enough to be sure that anyone else that claims to know - that I have encountered - does not really know any more than I do.  I am sorry to appear so arrogant but I have yet to encounter a solution that I find empirically acceptable or divinely inspired and so convincing enough to say that I am ready to say anything other than that I remain very unconvinced.  Which BTW is my current stand on several other hot topics that I have been accused for being too opinionated about when I point out to others that I think their opinion and speculation doses not demonstrate that they know enough to announce to the world that they have the answer. 

[Traveler]

Numerous careful readings of the Book of Mormon have convinced me that the primary New World narrative takes place in an area no more than a couple of hundred miles from north to south, and probably significantly less than that. The South-America-as-Nephi-North-America-as-Zarahemla-Bountiful-Desolation idea just isn't plausible.

 

I do not agree with this conclusion.  The Nephits had many cities of over 100,000 individuals.  The land mass needed for agricultural alone would with their primitive pre modern petroleum technology would indicate more than a couple of hundred miles - Note that the Mormon civilization under Brigham young covered from Mexico to Canada and from San Diego California to Wyoming  to support a much smaller civilization.  Also keep in mind that Moroni dedicated the Manti temple grounds while avoiding the Lamanites - What direction do you speculate Moroni would travel to avoid Lamanites?  I am thinking - north.  How far would Moroni travel from just from Manti to where Joseph found the plates?

Edited May 20, 2015 by Traveler

[Capitalist_Oinker]

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.

 

I’m sympathetic to your statement, but I also wonder about something?

It seems obvious to me, that unless we can determine where the "Promised Land" was (is), the prophecies, instructions, and warnings given throughout the BOM to those who would live in the Promised Land in the future are meaningless. For what purpose are explicit warnings given to those living in a particular land if that land cannot be identified? 

 

I know the Church has not taken an official stand, but I believe the words of prophets and apostles from Joseph Smith to most recently L. Tom Perry HAVE identified the land the Nephites occupied and HAVE identified the "Land of Promise". I believe it is the same land where the Garden of Eden was; the same land where Adam-ondi-Ahman was; the same land where the New Jerusalem will be built; the same land that would be the base of God's operations in the last days; it is the land we call the USA.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

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

 

I have.

I've also read most everything Lund, Peterson, Roper, Ash, Hauck, and a truckload of other Mesoamerican proponents have written. 

And I disagree with all of them. 

I remember the first book I ever read with a Mesoamerican angle--- "Warfare in the Book of Mormon". The thing that struck me was how the authors continually pounded the square pegs of BOM text and Joseph Smith’s writings into the round holes of their Mesoamerican theories. They began with the assumption that the Mesoamerican model was true, and therefore any evidence to the contrary could be explained away no matter how presumptuous the interpretation. Some of their analyses were laughable in my opinion. 

 

I have a great deal of respect for Peterson and the rest of his FairMormon cronies when it comes to Mormon apologetics, but I have little use for them when it comes to BOM geography. 

Too many times I've seen them dismiss valid Heartland model arguments with not much more than a "Meh", while spending WAY too much time engaged in character assassination (e.g. Meldrum, May and Porter).

In fact, I believe it was this disposition that caused BYU to essentially divest itself of FARMS.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I do not think that we are talking about a small area...

 

You and I obviously disagree on the "where" of BOM geography, but we do agree that it wasn't a small area. When Nephi records that they traveled "many days" it's unlikely his journey was only a few hundred miles. 

[The Folk Prophet]

 

I’m sympathetic to your statement, but I also wonder about something?

It seems obvious to me, that unless we can determine where the "Promised Land" was (is), the prophecies, instructions, and warnings given throughout the BOM to those who would live in the Promised Land in the future are meaningless. For what purpose are explicit warnings given to those living in a particular land if that land cannot be identified? 

 

I know the Church has not taken an official stand, but I believe the words of prophets and apostles from Joseph Smith to most recently L. Tom Perry HAVE identified the land the Nephites occupied and HAVE identified the "Land of Promise". I believe it is the same land where the Garden of Eden was; the same land where Adam-ondi-Ahman was; the same land where the New Jerusalem will be built; the same land that would be the base of God's operations in the last days; it is the land we call the USA.

 

 

Yes...but the Nephites could have lived in a small portion of "The Promised Land" and the promises would still apply to the land at large. So, yes....the American Continent(s) as a whole...important to know. Specifically where? Interesting. But not important.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Yes...but the Nephites could have lived in a small portion of "The Promised Land" and the promises would still apply to the land at large. So, yes....the American Continent(s) as a whole...important to know. Specifically where? Interesting. But not important.

 

Then we might just as well declare the entire western hemisphere the "promised land" to be on the safe side. 

I just don't believe the promises and prophecies allow it.

[Traveler]

You and I obviously disagree on the "where" of BOM geography, but we do agree that it wasn't a small area. When Nephi records that they traveled "many days" it's unlikely his journey was only a few hundred miles. 

 

Since I do not know where the BOM geography is -- perhaps you could tell me where I indicated it was that you disagree with. 

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Since I do not know where the BOM geography is -- perhaps you could tell me where I indicated it was that you disagree with. 

 

I'm sorry, Traveler.

I've been stuck here at work (several 18 hour shifts in a row) for a long time and I'm running on very little sleep. I took a remark made by someone else and attributed it to you.

My apologies.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

Then we might just as well declare the entire western hemisphere the "promised land" to be on the safe side. 

I just don't believe the promises and prophecies allow it.

 

 

I guess all the saints who died without ever learning where the Book of Mormon actually took place, and all the saints who will die before it's actually revealed are out of luck then. Too bad for them. Too bad for us probably. Salvation lost. Woe is us.

 

Snarkiness aside, I tell you...it just is not important to know when we take into consideration what is, actually, "important".

[Traveler]

I guess all the saints who died without ever learning where the Book of Mormon actually took place, and all the saints who will die before it's actually revealed are out of luck then. Too bad for them. Too bad for us probably. Salvation lost. Woe is us.

 

Snarkiness aside, I tell you...it just is not important to know when we take into consideration what is, actually, "important".

 

Must making sure - are you saying that an attitude of discovery and quest for truth for the sake of truth is actually not important?  Or are you suggesting only the truth you personally care about is actually important?

[The Folk Prophet]

Must making sure - are you saying that an attitude of discovery and quest for truth for the sake of truth is actually not important?  Or are you suggesting only the truth you personally care about is actually important?

 

Neither. And I suspect you understand that quite well but are determined to press an argument for argument's sake.

[Traveler]

Neither. And I suspect you understand that quite well but are determined to press an argument for argument's sake.

 

Sorry I went where I did.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I guess all the saints who died without ever learning where the Book of Mormon actually took place, and all the saints who will die before it's actually revealed are out of luck then. Too bad for them. Too bad for us probably. Salvation lost. Woe is us.

 

C'mon, you don't really think (at least I hope you don't) that I think our (Latter-day Saints) salvation is in jeopardy if we don't know where the story took place?

 

What I do think is that we (Latter-day Saints) have a responsibility to warn those who currently occupy the Promised Land that their TEMPORAL salvation (setting aside their spiritual salvation) is in jeopardy if they reject God. And unless we can identify that land, I don't believe the warning can be effectively issued.

 

A dominant theme in the BOM is that the "Promised Land" is a COVENANT land reserved for a people who will worship God and keep His commandments. Much of Moroni's final words were a direct and pointed warning to the future inhabitants of that "Promised Land". 

He warned that unless they served God they would be swept off and utterly destroyed. He gave us the lesson of the annihilation of the Nephites as a case in point. He wrote similarly of the tragedy of the Jaredites as another case in point. There is an eternal deed affixed to this land with an everlasting decree that those who live here will either serve God or they will be destroyed, and not just spiritually but TEMPORALLY. 

I believe Moroni was an American. His people were Americans, too. His words constituted a people-to-people message; ancient Americans speaking to modern Americans. Theirs was the voice of bitter experience seeking to persuade us to avoid the mistakes which resulted in their annihilation. 

 

It just seems to me that unless the "Promised Land" can be identified, the prophecies, promises and warnings that apply to that land and the people who will live there in the latter-days, are of little or no value.

 

Or it could be that I'm just up in the night. 

[Traveler]

 

C'mon, you don't really think (at least I hope you don't) that I think our (Latter-day Saints) salvation is in jeopardy if we don't know where the story took place?

 

What I do think is that we (Latter-day Saints) have a responsibility to warn those who currently occupy the Promised Land that their TEMPORAL salvation (setting aside their spiritual salvation) is in jeopardy if they reject God. And unless we can identify that land, I don't believe the warning can be effectively issued.

 

A dominant theme in the BOM is that the "Promised Land" is a COVENANT land reserved for a people who will worship God and keep His commandments. Much of Moroni's final words were a direct and pointed warning to the future inhabitants of that "Promised Land". 

He warned that unless they served God they would be swept off and utterly destroyed. He gave us the lesson of the annihilation of the Nephites as a case in point. He wrote similarly of the tragedy of the Jaredites as another case in point. There is an eternal deed affixed to this land with an everlasting decree that those who live here will either serve God or they will be destroyed, and not just spiritually but TEMPORALLY. 

I believe Moroni was an American. His people were Americans, too. His words constituted a people-to-people message; ancient Americans speaking to modern Americans. Theirs was the voice of bitter experience seeking to persuade us to avoid the mistakes which resulted in their annihilation. 

 

It just seems to me that unless the "Promised Land" can be identified, the prophecies, promises and warnings that apply to that land and the people who will live there in the latter-days, are of little or no value.

 

Or it could be that I'm just up in the night. 

 

 

Perhaps it is about a covenant and not dirt and rocks.  I find that the three symbolic connections in covenants with G-d are always the same:

 

First - protection from the enemy (forgiveness of sin and protection from Satan)

Second - a promised land of inheritance - a place of law, where G-d is the law giver and provider of justice.

Three - enduring seed or posterity - eternal life.

[Traveler]

This thread has kind of died.  Let me make it clear that I do not know where the land of the Nephits is - but from my own research of ocean currents and prevailing winds - I speculate that the Jaredites landed on the east coast of what is now the USA.  Also from my studies of ancient travel - it was almost impossible to get from Arabia to the Americas along a southern root that would bring the Nephits to South America.  There are records of ancient Chinese traveling the northern root to the Americas that would have taken them to Canada or the Northwestern US.  But to return they would have to travel to south America and Polynesia to return.  If the Nephits took an easterly root from Arabia - it would take 3 to 4 times longer.

 

Many LDS believe Polynesians to be of Lamanite extraction - I can understand perhaps a Nephite extraction through Hagar but Lamanite????  Can anyone explain this to me?

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Perhaps it is about a covenant and not dirt and rocks.  

 

But the covenant is CLEARLY attached to the dirt and rocks.

 

(2 Nephi 1:5-7)

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed.  Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

6  Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

7  Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.  And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes…

 

(Ether 2:7-12)

7  And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

8  And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

9  And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them.  And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

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.

11  And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

12  Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

 

I could list many, many more like verses. The restrictions and blessings on the "promised land" are NOT specific for a particular people or a particular time in history, but are CONNECTED TO THE LAND ITSELF.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Many LDS believe Polynesians to be of Lamanite extraction - I can understand perhaps a Nephite extraction through Hagar but Lamanite????  Can anyone explain this to me?

 

1. I assume you mean “Hagoth” rather than “Hagar”.

2. What evidence is there that Hagoth had to be a Nephite? There were probably hundreds of thousands of full blooded Lamanites living among the Nephites by 55 B.C. Who knows, perhaps Hagoth was one of them?

 

P.S. I agree with you regarding the Jaradites.