Theories of Book of Mormon Geographyby Don R. HenderPreface"The study of Book of Mormon Geography is useless and void of meaning to he who has not a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The book is true and of God regardless of geography. Geography will only bring life and meaning to he who is already converted." ~drh
A Total DisclaimerIn one respect, the mapping of the Book of Mormon is an exercise in futility. It is like attempting a mapping of Atlantis where Atlantis no longer exists. That is, in one sense, the land has changed and evolved with great land deforming catastrophic events both ancient and more recent. If one accepts the Bible as true, then the whole earth was covered with water and the land itself was not divided until the days of Peleg. This alone puts believing Christians at odds with the theories and conclusions of the science of men. The Book of Mormon itself sets forth its own monumental land reshaping events with the moving of mountains, the utter annihilation of one people by another intent on destroying all evidence of the other's existence, and especially the great cataclysmic destruction at the time of the death of Christ. Those events, as recorded in the Book of Mormon at Christ's death, were so great that the face of the land was altered, mostly upon the land north, but also in respect to the land south. And what manner of any 'abridged and highly condensed' description of the land's geography there is, which may be useful, mostly concerns the land of the Nephites prior to that great destruction and alteration of the land. It is of little wonder that the LDS Church takes no official stand upon the geography of the Book of Mormon and counsels their faithful membership accordingly in respect to such speculations. Now, perhaps a review of the Official position of the Church is warranted before any jump to totally unjustified conclusions. Years ago a member of the First Presidency of the Church, President George Q. Cannon counseled that 'The Book of Mormon is not a geographical primer. It was not written to teach geographical truths. What is told us of the situation of the various lands or cities ... is usually simply an incidental remark connected with the doctrinal or historical portions of the work." President Faust of today's First Presidency reaffirmed this and reaffirmed that the Church has no Official position concerning the geography of the Book of Mormon in the First Presidency's message of January 2004 in the Ensign magazine published and distributed by the Church. (See Latest Word on Book of Mormon Geography & The First Presidentcy Message) Those who subscribe to any such set geography do so on their own and without Church sanction. And if they do so adamantly without reservation, they do so without appropriate caution. Now, if I propose a possible geography, I am certainly well aware that it most likely is not correct in all, if any, of its facets. And I am certainly of the position to disregard the whole of it when and if the Church does come out with an Official position from the proper priesthood authorities. Any who so prescribe a Book of Mormon geography, whether in the fields of high academia intellectualism or even as a manner of belief upon the past words of any authorities, without such position of disclaimer and who do not have an open and object mind concerning other possibilities than their own, lack in humility and pretend to knowledge not truly theirs.
The Geography of the Book of MormonAnd yet, the Geography of the Book of Mormon is a most intriguing topic of consideration. The Book of Mormon sets out no precise geography in terms of modern maps, yet, for such an abridged volume, there is an 'abundance' of geographic description and information in the book. In one respect it is almost as if the primary abridger and editor of the book, namely Mormon, took it for granted that the reader would naturally comprehend his dialog in respect to the lay of the land from what seemed to him obvious. And as the book is an abridgement, Mormon felt no such compulsion to clarify any further than what he did just how the geography of the land would eventually fit to a map that was yet to be determined. That is, it does not seem that Mormon was attempting to hide the geography of the Book of Mormon from the reader, he described the land's geography quite adequately. But the fact that the book is an abridged record containing less that a hundredth part of the history of Mormon's people and the fact that it was not his primary effort to convey modern geography to the land (the primary intent of the book is to convert people unto the gospel of Christ), makes it quite understandable that there are unresolved questions concerning the precise geography of the Book of Mormon. The official position of the Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is that it does not purport nor support any precise Book of Mormon geography mapping. In days past there have been some statements made, even by General Authorities, some of which are conflicting concerning the geography of the Book of Mormon. Yet the Church has left the question for the present to personal interpretation and academic speculation. I believe they have done this for good reason. With any such set mapping, the men of science and their 'theories' would most certainly take exception to any such authentic Book of Mormon mapping by misapplying and misinterpreting by use of personal dissection and personal analysis based on their man made theories to the extent of confusing and misleading many away from the truth based solely on their theorized conclusions. F.A.R.M.S. (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) is an organized academic investigative effort exploring various topics including evidences of the Book of Mormon and its geography. It is associated with BYU. Some view this as the official position of the Church since it comes out of 'BYU.' And even some at FARMS seem to abuse their 'position' by so emphatically stating their seemingly singular Book of Mormon Geography to the point of attack against other theories and seemingly discrediting the beliefs and faith of others within the Church. I have been contacted by some who fear that FARMS is wrong in a number of its geographical speculations with regard to the Book of Mormon lands and that it will divide the faithful of the Church and cause a chasm and a falling away of the people who do not agree with FARMS. I for one do not agree with FARMS's current thought on the geography of the Book of Mormon. Yet I feel no such threat personally though I can see how FARMS could be perceived to be doing just that. My biggest regret in respect to FARMS, is that as a research organization, they have myopically limited themselves to the exploration of only one such geographic possibility. I personally believe that any such threat of FARMS dividing the Church is unreal, as long as those of Church Leadership position continue to disavow any such mapping officially until it is revealed through proper Church authority from the Prophet of God. And to date the Church has not come out in support of any single such theory, but it has actually taken a position of quite the opposite view. Thus, until the Church states officially what the Book of Mormon Geography is, it will be discussed and various opinions will abound. When the Church does make an official statement, then we all must forsake whatever differences of theories and opinions we have and adopt the revealed truth of the matter. This applies as much to FARMS as it does to any of us if they be wrong. FARMS's efforts on various topics are admirable even though I do not agree with their current association of Zarahemla and the hill of Cumorah as part of the Book of Mormon lands confined to Central America.
Various Views of Book of Mormon GeographyI have had an appreciation and understanding of various theoretical models of Book of Mormon Geography. I do not necessarily agree with them in opinion, but I certainly respect each, admire their efforts, and do find much truth to much of their analysis without coming to the same conclusions. I learn things from each of their presentations which I did not consider or thought of in the light in which they expose it. This only adds to my understanding and knowledge base. And while, obviously, I can't agree in total upon each differing theory, there are points needful of consideration brought out by each and more to be learned from their insights. And am quite agreeable to be of the mind of allowing each their conclusions without attack on my part as long as they so treat others as they would be treated. And I am of firm belief that this is the way it ought to be, as who knows who will be eating 'crow' when the whole truth of the matter is revealed. So kind words and civil and mutual appreciation, without the attack of dogma which would place one theory above another by the means of tearing down another's ideas by verbal and critical attack of a supposed superior position are in order. For the facts of the matter are not known, and regardless of all the great intellectual feats of dissection and ascertainment, it will be only the truth whether consistent or inconsistent with the reasoning, logic, and suppositions of men, that will be the actuality of the matter as revealed by God.
Now, it should be noted that at least three of these proposed theories are 'limited' theories based on their size when compared to all of the Americas, Southern, Central, and Northern. Only the 'Traditional Model' is a true hemispheric model. And there are points of agreement among the limited theories which could be considered common to them is relation to size limits and distance perspectives. In one sense, this limited nature could conceivably be the by product of reading a very condensed abridged record and not having the insight to be able to reconstitute the condensation to its proper perspectives. This would be my position but not in every matter, for there are a number of basic problems of size and distance which do come into play which a 'pure' hemispheric model in relation to the America's map of today just does not fit even with skillful reconstitution of the condensation. Thus I fell to add a sixth model, which will stay true to the basic ideal of a hemispheric model, but with necessary adaptations which are needed to properly fit what is said in the Book of Mormon. This sixth model, will be introduced at the end of this page and be called the 'Neo-Traditional' view.
#1 Traditionalism?The 'Traditional View,' though the most familiar and longest term view of the Book of Mormon lands, contains many flaws without past historical answers. Though the narrow neck of Panama seems most obvious as the likely narrow neck of the Book of Mormon, today's South American continent is just much too wide for the limited land size descriptions in the Book of Mormon. The Nephite and Lamanite wars that occur from coast to coast just could not have happened from the west coast of Colombia to the east coast of Brazil along the Amazon River. And the Chilean proposed landing site of Lehi that is generally associated with this theory has many flaws such as it is a desert land 1000 miles south of any fruitful and abundant land with forested wildernesses filled with beasts of every kind including domestic animals. And then many argue that the Hill Cumorah could not be such a great distance north, though personally I think that is the weakest of the arguments against the 'Traditional View.' For indeed history abounds with peoples travelings thousands of miles in limited spaces of time for survival, religious and even exploritory and relocation purposes. Not only in more ancient times but in the days of later American history there is Lewis and Clark's expedition to the Pacific and back, over 4,000 miles traveled. The American Indian's 'Trail of Tears' in just one winter season. The many Mormon travels from as far away as Europe to Salt Lake, traveling 1,000s of miles and in the traveling seasons alone both back and forth. Even Zion's Camp and the Mormon Battalion traveled distances which the limited theorist would deny the Nephites capable of in like spaces of time.
#2 Meso-AmericanismIt is shame that the modern 'meso-American' theorists fail to even seem to acknowledge their own 'founding father' of their 'Central American Theories.' Perhaps that is because if they did they would find it harder to run their end run around the fact that the foundational view of the 'Church' was the traditional North through South American Traditional Model. Dr. Sperry was the 'first' Central American model theorist and believe it or not, there were others before today's highly recognized 'John Sorenson.' The problem they have with fully recognizing Sydney Sperry as their father, is that Dr. Sperry was once a Church published 'Traditional Model' adherant. That is Dr. Sperry contributed to and is accounted responsible for some earlier LDS Sunday School material where he bastion's the 'Traditional Model.' And as such, to fully recognize Dr. Sydney Sperry as the first leading edge of the 'Central American Theories' would be a foundational blow to how today's 'Meso-American' theorist position themselves as having come right out of early Church History and the position of Joseph Smith. Why the 'Meso-American' theorist can't even bring themselves to even say they are but 'Central American Theorists.'
Another major matter of conflict which the MesoAmerican theory does not do well with, is the fact that there were otherwise contemporary peoples living all around the very limited proposed people of Mesoamerica, both in North and South America, during the same time frame of the Book of Mormon era, which they, based upon their theories, were not of Book of Mormon origin. And despite much that interlinks all these peoples together as one people, the Mesoamerica theorists do not account for it, whereas the 'Continental Theory' does by making them all, for the most part associates of either the Jaredites of the groups associated with Lehi. Of course these people are the ancestors to the American Indians. The American Indians are all one people from North to Central to South America. So at just what point are these native peoples suppose to become part of the America native Lamanites, whence they once where not, if they are not the same people who are also living in Central America during the Meso-American Book of Mormon times? Just when do the ancestors of the Inca, who began as the civilization of Chavin located in South America during the time of Nephi, all of a sudden become a part of the Lamanite descendents of Lehi? When do the North American Indian tribes dating back well into Book of Mormon times suddenly beome Lamanites descended from Lehi rather than a people apart from the limit Meso-American Book of Mormon society? Once they must not have been of Lehi, under the Meso-American theory of the geography of the Book of Mormon. This to me is the weakest point of the Central American theories. They all just plain and simple ignore all the rest of the peoples of the Americas, while myopically concentrating only on one single limited group housed in Central or Meso America.
I suppose that you think I'm a little harsh on the Mesoamerica theory, which I prefer to spell MesoAmerica as the little theory seems to belittle America. Yet I wish not to do so, as I was once also of that mind and have much in my mind which understands it. But with so many supporting it today and proposing it to be the ultimate answer, I am sure there are more than enough to defend it. So perhaps there needs to be at least some strong amount of opposition stressed to compensate for a theory so overly adopted primarily due to its 'intellectual' and academic roots?
#3 The United States OnlyDr. Sorenson's dogma about being able to read Mormon's mind in publishing his little book entitled 'Mormon's Map,' has promoted that what the Book of Mormon states can only reflect to be a 'limited Book of Mormon geography.' But there are some theorist who have accept the 'limited model' requirements but not placed them in Central America. One such 'group' is those who adhere to the fact that the hill of Cumorah was and is only in New York state and that there wasn't two Cumorahs but only the one and the 'limited geography' is that which is confined to North American.
To accept a Limited US Model, you must conclude that all the major events in the Book of Mormon took place in the United States. This model's greatest asset is that it maintains the sanctity of the Hill Cumorah being near Palmyra, New York, there and only there. And it can be based on some statements made and/or attributed to the Prophet Joseph Smith as to the location of Manti and as to the land of desolation. Most understand that a prophet is a person also, and he is prone to personal ideas which over time may vary according to his own personal opinion from time to time. And often such statements are easily taken out of context of more complete understanding when restated by others. Joseph is also attributed as making statements which would locate the Book of Mormon lands from South America to North America including a Zarahemla in Central America. As to the statement of Zarahemla being in Central America, it can be read either way, Joseph stating it and then disclaiming it with a disclaimer or perhaps John Taylor stating it and Joseph calling him into correction with the added softening disclaimer which many MesoAmerican theorist like to leave off. Any attempt to sort through all those statements is likely to bring criticism from others who would select to authenticate only those which support their own theory. And thus to avoid such critical review, some avoid referencing the Prophet completely on the matter and attempt to settle it in other ways. And some will even take it to the point of concluding that since Joseph had a fluctuation of opinion as indicated by the various attributed quotations, the he must not be a prophet. Personally I think quite the opposite. If Joseph was reportedly 'perfect' in all, then I'd suspect him to be a total contrivance as no prophet was ever perfect in all that they did. Why look at Jonah and his mistakes and even the great Moses was not absolutely perfect either. But it seems that to some the Prophet Joseph Smith must be judged by every word that ever past through his lips (at least the ones they choose to note and attribute to him, whether his or not), revelation from God or not. Now, some proponents of the Limited North American Theory point out that there are Indian place names that mean some of the same things that the place names of the Book of Mormon meant. Niagara Falls area is the Narrows like the Narrow Neck, there is a place name that denotes Bountiful and so on. All in all, an argument appears for the location of the Book of Mormon solely in the United States based on the selected 'words of Joseph Smith' and Indian place names. Yet Joseph supposedly spoke of other descriptions of the Book of Mormon denoting the lands of Central America with Zarahemla and the Nephites, and the lands of South America being populated by the descendants of Lehi. And there are likely other descriptive American Indian (including Mayan, Inca, etc. names) native place names that have some correlation with the meanings of Book of Mormon names in other localities throughout the Americas. The biggest challenge of the North American/United States view is it really takes much effort and arrangement to match the lay of the land as Mormon described it in the pages of the Book of Mormon to the regions about New York. And perhaps Phyllis Carol Olive does this as well as any in her book entitled 'The Lost Lands of the Book of Mormon,' which I have already once mentioned.
#4 Quasi South America OnlyAgain accepting Dr. Sorenson's dogma about there having to be but 'limited Book of Mormon geography, some, though few have suggested that the Book of Mormon lands were confined or 'limited' to a part of the lands of South America only, but not South America as we know it because it would be too big. One of the best treatments of this theory is in a small book by Venice Priddis called 'The Book and The Map.' There seems to be much work and much truth to many of Sister Priddis' presentations. And the book is well worth the reading for any one who is truly seeking geography of the Book of Mormon. The South American lands in this particular model are cut down to the size of basically Peru being the land south of the Book of Mormon and Columbia being the land north of the Book of Mormon. Sister Priddis presents and supports the concept that there was an 'Amazon Sea' which was the Sea East and she truncates South America below Peru, creating a Sea South. Sister Priddis further proposes that South America was not connected to Central and North America until some later time. This seems to answer many objections, but it does create some problems. Doctrinally, Central America and North America are no longer a part of Lehi's promised land and the land of liberty which Mormon's doctrinal beliefs seem to uphold. It ignores the grand and great civilization of the Central Americas, even though so does the Central American theory do the same to the Pre-Columbian civilizations of South America. Yet there is much truth to be found in the pages of this little book. Now I have found there is much truth to be found in all of the theories discussed so far. But each have their flaws and short comings, so what is the answer? Give up on the Americas? Or consider each for the truth that is in them.
#5 Not of the America's FrustrationThere is one more theory that has been proposed, perhaps out of frustration as much as out of any real basis for such a theory. Since no acceptable model for the Book of Mormon lands has yet been established that can not be picked apart by one of an opposing view, regardless of the truths of the matter, one might just as well conclude that the lands of the Book of Mormon were not in the Americas at all, but somewhere else. And so the last of the five theories is born. If not here then somewhere else. Pick a site. Yet this above all the previous theories ignores the doctrinal side of the Book of Mormon that puts forth the prophecy concerning Columbus' being led by the Spirit of God to this land of promise and the coming of the Gentiles to this land and their treatment of the descendants of Lehi. This is not to mention that Joseph Smith was to rise up upon this land of promise and liberty, and fulfill the promise of Joseph of Egypt for this promised land. Thus for the sake doctrinal implications, this last theory is dismissed. And also, interestingly enough, if Joseph Smith is the Prophet raised up to fulfill the promises of Joseph in this promised land, then this promised land of the Book of Mormon had to include North America and the state of New York where Joseph Smith was raised up. Now that I have discounted or at least argued against all the prominent theories, I might suppose you would expect me to say there is no Book of Mormon lands as we cannot find them. But nothing could be further from the truth. My concept of the Book of Mormons has been an evolving concept. I first was a traditionalist and then I fell into the MesoAmerica idea as I saw the flaw of the strict traditionalism. But that too was short lived. And I have reviewed and studied the other approaches. The United States/Canada theory, the Quasi South American theory, and even the frustration of taking it out of the Americas. All these theories have some concepts of truth in them and they have all contributed to what is now the evolutionary model that I am putting together and am still seeking. I find that the more I search, the broader the scope of information applies. Even the Bible cannot be ignored in putting together the lands of the Book of Mormon nor the Doctrine and Covenants. And I thank Sister Priddis for showing a way to a conclusion, though it be not hers. And even the models that reject all of the Americas have only come to emphasis to me that even the doctrinal implications of the Book of Mormon cannot be ignored in determining what must be considered as being included in the Land of Promise, this land of fulfillment given to Lehi to fulfill the promises to Joseph, Ephraim, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, and Adam. The Americas must be included in Lehi's land of promise, it is doctrinal that they do. So I must meet every flaw with an adjustment that answers it regardless of what that means. And like Sister Priddis, if that means that the Amazon was the East Sea, then so be it, it must needs be so. And if that means that lands were divided in and 'turned' apart in the days of Peleg, then the lands of the Book of Mormon are effected and this adds to the solution. So where do I stand in all these theories?
#6 ~ Neo-Traditionalism ~Now as stated, I have found 'turths' in all the presented models from the 'Traditionalist' I find the truth that all of the Americas, North, Central and South America, was the lands of the Book of Mormon. From the 'Central American or 'Meso-American' theorists I have found some 'limited' truths that are a part of their 'limited model' prognosis, but not all of such. In the South America only theorist, partiularly Sister Priddis, I have found the truths concering the nature of South America which over come the recognizable 'flaw' in its non-fitting size as the early lands of the Nephites and Lamanites. But I also have found in all of these theorized models that they do have serious flaws, particularly when it comes down to properly fitting it to the lands of America. But unlike those who throw up their hands and abandon the Americas completely, I've 'melted out' the truths of each and have molded a 'Neo-Traditional Theoretical Book of Mormon Geographic Model.' Now, if all the other 'theories' have flaws and shortcomings, then just where does that leave one? It leaves one in a position to attempt to pick out the truth from all the other theories and bring them together, while also attempting to resolve the obvious marked flaws of the other theories at the same time. The first matter would seem to be to stop trying to put so much into such small and limited containers as the various 'limited models' do, over flowing there model needfully into other lands anyway. But at the same time, one must also reduce the whole western hemisphere down into a working Book of Mormon compliant perspective. Perhaps the first item of challenge and adjustment needs to be the misnomers and impracticalities such as that of the original landing site of Lehi's party, which I will proceed to do after further explaining my own theoretical position. So where does my thought lie in conjunction to the Lands of the Book of Mormon. I'd have to say that I could currently be labeled as a 'Neo-Traditionalist.' I have been a student of Book of Mormon geography for some number of years now and my opinion has changed over this time. I once believed in the full traditional model presented by the Church. Then I was affected by those early bastions of the 'Central American Model' beginning with Sydney Sperry and others B.S. [Before Sorenson]. And B.S., I found my self believing in those Central American models. Yet, for some unexplainable reason to me, BYU and F.A.R.M.S. and now even the Maxwell Foundation, has today, favored what I've come to consider 'Sorensonism.' And it was B.S. that I myself had abandoned the 'Central American Model' and returned to bing and more Traditional Model adherent with recognizing that that Traditional Model did have some flas and inconsistantcies. So yet my course of thought had taken me somewhat around in a circle. I first simplistically looked to all of South America as the land south, and the Amazon as the Sidon river. I soon found that such did not fit what the Book of Mormon said and that was B.S. too. The expanse of the land was too vast, and the river runs in the wrong direction being west to east. Then for some time as stated my thought, was that the Book of Mormon lands was specific to Central America. But then my Book of Mormon studies deepened and I found a number of other facts, such that in my grandfather's 1906 Book of Mormon there was a footnote, likely based upon George Reynolds contributions of his deep study of the Book of Mormon which pin pointed the Magdalena River to be the River Sidon and is all of its decernable attributes that river matched the Sidon river. Also, I found in the text The Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 267, that Joseph Smith actually another Landing Site for Lehi way before others attributed that far south site upon the west coast of Chili. Such findings turned me back to the Traditional model, though flawed as it was, and this was even before there was a FARMS, Sorenson and a 'general BYU consensous'. It seems to me that yet own experienced conclusions was once where those similarly based thoughts of FARMS', Sorenson and the Maxwell Institue are today. I've since further searched and have abandoned all such theories previously, even the full Traditional Theory, which is the closest to what I think is correct today. All the additional evidences both direct and circumstantial if taken objectively is that which has led me back to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon lands of Zarahemla and Nephi were indeed in South America. Yet not the entire South America as I have now had to conclude that the South America of today is not the same as the South America as it was in the times of the Book of Mormon. Thank you Sister Priddis.
Lehi's Landing Not in Chili
And thus where does one begin? Both the scholarly 'knowledge' and the
opportunity presented itself in the selection of a 'Chili' South American
landing site. Traveling from the Far East across the Pacific eastward, the
currents and trades logically favored that if a sailing ship were to land on
the western coast of South America, it would be most feasible and factually
accepted to be upon the west coast of Chili and it was not considered feasible
to sail directly into the the central Isthmus coast of Columbia. This was
despite the fact that in the Times and Seasons, Joseph Smith while he was
still alive had stated that Lehi landed a 'little south of the Isthmus of Darien.'
With some people's scholarly consensus a further attributed statement to Joseph Smith, indirectly via Fredrick Williams long after the prophet death, it was concluded by most scholarly and authoritative minds to 'the best of their ability' that Lehi had landed at the 30o latitude upon the west coast of Chili. This was and has been the 'Traditional View' as strongly promoted by such as the Apostle and Book of Mormon scholar Orson Pratt and others. In one of Orson Pratts last discourses upon the Book of Mormon, he did not pronouce the Chili site as absolute, but rather that it was the best that could be determined. This may have been prophetic in its own right. For until of recent date, there lacked an understanding concerning that effect today called 'El Nino' and its cyclic nature which does enable a direct course for a sailing vessel into the west coast of Columbia a little south of the Isthmus of Darien. [Note: Indian Legend suports this landing site as well. See Big Warrior]
One of the most recognizable sites that ought to be applied to the modern map
of the Americas is that of the Lehi's landing site as recorded in the book,
'The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 267. This is taken from the
Church publication, Times and Seasons during the life of Joseph Smith.
And here I will begin my departure from the strict 'Traditional View' though
I believe that in spirit I will remain true to this school in being as close
and true to the views of all the various Church authorites as reason allows.
By simply moving Lehi's landing to Joseph's first known statement as verified
by another Prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, a reduction to half the distance,
from 6,000 miles to nearly 3,000 miles, from the 'Neo-traditional' site of
Lehi's landing at the Darien Isthmus to the New York hill of Cumorah can be
made. This reduces the objectionable size of the 'Hemispheric Model' to a
half the size of what it was from the supposed Chili landing sight.
A Misnomer Expelled
Now just how all else falls into place
is what I will be presenting here on my Book of Mormon Geography pages.
As previously indicated, I will refer to this school of thought
as the 'Neo-Traditional' school of thought because it incorporates much of the
traditional views, while adapting the necessary to have it comply with what
the facts of the Book of Mormon and that other facts of the matter
do seem to appear to be facts needing satisfaction.
|
Now, I've noted five major general approaches to the lands of the Book of Mormon. 1) The first
has been labeled as the 'Traditional View.' Its premise is that according to
Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon peoples ranged over the entire Western
Hemisphere. They supposedly, according to one perspective, landed at the 30
degree south latitude on the western coast of Chile and the more righteous
group, who had later become wicked at the time of their destruction, became
extinct at the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, New York, which is about 6000 miles distance
from the landing site. 2) A second position which seems to have the most
support today is that the Book of Mormon lands, both the land north and the
land south. is all located in Central America and the distance from Lehi's
landing site to the 'other' Hill Cumorah in Central America is only about 400
miles. This school of thought seems most favored by the 'intellectual'
society associated with BYU beginning with Dr. Sidney B. Sperry and being
represented by FARMS and Dr. John L. Sorenson today. 3) A third
school of thought is that all of the events of the Book of Mormon only took
place in North America, namely the United States. This seems quite unpopular
in terms of numbers who support it, though there is a logical basis to its
assertions with some grounds found in statements from early Church History.
4) A fourth consideration which has supportable evidence is that the
Book of Mormon lands were all confined to South America, though not South
America as we know it today. 5) And a fifth consideration which has been set
forth by some, is that the Book of Mormon lands are not a part of the Americas
at all. This would be the least thought of concept as much of the Americas
being the land of liberty and the promised land as taught
in the Book of Mormon revolves around these Americas today. And that is a
part of Mormon Doctrine. While these are the 5 major approaches which I've
presented, there are other approaches with variations and
combinations which overlap these 5 major approaches which I have chosen not
to present as the arguments involved with those overlap those of the 5
major approaches presented.
The 'Central American View' seems to have much support today though its chief
draw back is that it tends to ignore the rest of the Americas, namely North
America and South America. It does just the opposite of trying to make too
little fit into too much land space. It tries to condense thousand year histories
into something the size of the state of Utah. It proposes that the distance
from the landing site of Lehi and the Hill Cumorah is about 400 miles distance.
That is about the distance between the northern border of the state of Utah
to the southern border of the state of Utah. It tries to convince us that
the peoples of the Book of Mormon over one to two thousand-year histories, just
would not have traveled any greater distance than that proximity. It seems
to ignore that any contemporary real history of this same time frame completely
discounts that idea. Abraham traveled from Ur to the north heads of the rivers of
the fertile crescent, down through the land of Salem/Jerusalem and on into
Egypt and back again in his single adult life time. That dwarf's the proposed
travels of the Book of Mormon peoples who had hundreds of life times and
thousands of years to remain confined to the size of the state of Utah? Lehi's
own travels in the old world from Jerusalem to the first Land of Bountiful
dwarf the proposed size of the Central American View in the time span of just
eight years journey. The old world histories, that have Nebuchadnezzar's
armies traveling 900 miles to destroy Jerusalem and fight wars with the
Egyptians in the Sinai in just a couple of years time make a mock at the
attempt to confine the populous and lands of the Book of Mormon to a mere
400 miles, which history spans over 1000 years for Lehi's descendants, the Nephites,
and going on to 2000 years for the Jaredites. Alexander the Great, The Roman
Empire, The Great Wall of China all testify that civilizations expand to
great sizes when given unlimited land and resources, not sizes limited to the
size of the state of Utah. Our own American colonization and expansion
also so testifies that given the land availability, despite native resistance,
lands expand over time to more than the size of the state of Utah. Even our
own Church history began on the eastern sea board in the New England States
and the State of New York. And it did migrate by 'primitive' means of boat,
horse, foot, wagons etc, to Ohio, then to Missouri, then Illinois, then
across the plains, some going south and to California's west coast before
coming to Utah and others straight on to Utah, not to mention all those who
also traveled a goodly greater distance around the world to and from Europe.
The Original Utah territory was as large if not larger than all the size
proposed for the 1000 year history of Lehi's people, and the Saints did all
of this and more in the life time of Brigham Young. Yet the
MesoAmerican theory purports that the Jaredite people who lived here the
longest, limited themselves to only a few hundred miles over 1000 to 2000
years of occupation. And that the descendants of Lehi, Mulek and Ishmael,
etc. did likewise over the space of a 1000 years plus. They confined
themselves to the lands of Central America, ignoring the rest of the Americas?
And this is not to mention the fact that the Book of Mormon lands that where
supposed to have run according to the Book of Mormon, north to south and have
the ocean to the north, south, east and west. It just doesn't fit the Central
MesoAmerican model that turns North to West and South to being East, and a
narrow neck which isn't a narrow neck into an east to west broad land mass
more like a good sized 'waist' than a 'narrow neck'.
