Slanted Land of Promise Book Reviews – Part II

Continuing with the last post on the FARMS review of Art Kocherhans’ book, “Lehi’s Isle of Promise,” showing the self-serving nature of such reviews and their tendency toward self-absorbed and self-advancing results:

Like all FARMS reviews of books written about an area not in Mesoamerica, this review was pathetically one-sided, misleading, and disingenuous. It would appear from their view, that John L. Sorenson’s Mesoamerican model is sacrosanct, and any writing about the Land of Promise not consistent with that point of view is subject to an automatic negative review, giving sometimes very little evidence of poor scholarship other than that it disagrees with Sorenson.

One would think that if a book review was to take place on any subject that the review would deal with what is written and not compare it to what someone else has written that, of itself, is also merely an opinion. However, FARMS reviews of books written about the Land of Promise are generally a prejudicial view of a singular location that is, in their mind, beyond reproach!

In defense of themselves, FARMS has said, “Despite the fact that some partisans insist that everyone they associate with the Maxwell Institute has a dogmatic ideological commitment to a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon, the Review began with essays pointing to the defects in one such theory. We have always urged caution and modesty, as well as strict fidelity to the host of geographical clues found in the Book of Mormon, in dealing with efforts to locate the events described therein.”

We quoted here in the last post, that one of Fleugel’s review comments of Kocherhans’ book was: “Rejecting John L. Sorenson's views on Nephite and Jaredite cohabitation with other peoples,” a point of view discussed in the last post as having absolutely no validity in the scriptural record—yet used to discount Kocherhan’s writing and point of view. It might also be mentioned that 3 of the 4 references Fleugel used to substantiate his point of view were Sorenson’s writings.

Let us include two more of Fleugel’s critiques of Kocherhan’s work:

1) “Chapter 4 reintroduces the South American inundation theory…a large Andean island resolves the use of the word "isle" in 2 Nephi 10:20 ("for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea"). Kocherhans is quick to refer us to an 1828 dictionary definition, "a tract of land surrounded by water, or a detached portion of land embosomed in the ocean" (p. 135). However, in the verse quoted above, Jacob is referring primarily to the ocean voyage from the Near East. Since the Lord, according to Jacob, "made the sea our path," Jacob calls the result of that voyage "an isle of the sea." The exact dimensions of the land mass they occupied were probably never known to the Nephites, but the fact that they came there by ship led Jacob to refer to it as an isle.”

Without saying so directly, Fleugel throws a wet towel over the idea that Jacob is describing their land as an island in the sea over which they traveled from Bountiful. On the other hand, there is no other way to interpret Jacob’s comment. The point of that scripture is that Jacob is speaking to the Nephites of his day (with Nephi recording his words) who were concerned about no longer living in Jerusalem where the Lord’s people dwelt, and being cast off and no longer known to the Lord since they were far from Jerusalem and on an island out in the middle of the sea. Jacob, in trying to allay their concerns, reminds them of who they are and how they came to be on this island in the middle of the sea.

In speaking, Jacob quote the Lord “I will fulfil my promises which I have made unto the children of men” (2 Nephi 10:17), and adds, “Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among thy seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God” (2 Nephi 10:19). Jacob then goes on to add, in reassurance to his people, “And now, my beloved brethren, seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember him, and lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for we are not cast off; nevertheless, we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20).

Obviously, Jacob is telling them that the Lord brought them across the sea (“driven forth before the wind” Nephi tells us) and that they landed on an island in that sea. Fleugel can ridicule the 1828 dictionary, but it was a language of New England at a time when Joseph Smith grew up and translated the plates. The word "isle" is defined, as Joseph would have known it and obviously used it. In fact, Noah Webster goes on to say that the word “island” was not a proper word in that time and describes why. So “isle” for “island” would have been the correct usage of that word, despite Fleugel’s attempt to discredit it. And continuing, Fleugel says: “However, in the verse quoted above, Jacob is referring primarily to the ocean voyage from the Near East. Since the Lord, according to Jacob, "made the sea our path," Jacob calls the result of that voyage "an isle of the sea.” It is hard to understand Fleugel’s point—other than to say that Jacob called it an island simply because it was at the end of their journey across the ocean, which is a very unscholarly comment. After all, Jacob called it an island, Joseph Smith interpreted it as island and the spirit testified that it was an island. What exactly is Fleugel trying to question?

Now, to make sure we understand what Jacob is saying, the following verse states: “But great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, there must needs be more than this, and they are inhabited also by our brethren” (2 Nephi 10:21). Now, isn’t that quote plain? The Nephites were on an island in the sea. Other islands are also inhabited by Jews who have been led away from Jerusalem (something Isaiah wrote long before Lehi left Jerusalem). Thus, Jacob says that there must be other islands than the one the Nephites were upon. Then, to cap off his point to the Nephites, Jacob says, “the Lord God has led away from time to time from the house of Israel, according to his will and pleasure. And now behold, the Lord remembereth all them who have been broken off, wherefore he remembereth us also” (2 Nephi 10:22).

Not finished with his trying to cloud the issue of the Nephites being on an island, Fleugel adds, “The exact dimensions of the land mass they occupied were probably never known to the Nephites, but the fact that they came there by ship led Jacob to refer to it as an isle.” First of all, there is absolutely no rationale behind such a remark. After all, Jacob, the number two spiritual leader of the Nephite nation at the time, with the leader, Nephi, writing down exactly what Jacob said, thus showing that the prophet and next prophet of the Nephites both were speaking along a spiritual line to the people. But more importantly, Joseph Smith was translating by the Spirit—so we have three prophets saying this was an island and the spirit testifying that this is correct, yet Fleugel decides he knows more than the prophets and the scriptural record.

(See the next post, “Slanted Land of Promise Book Reviews – Part III,” for the second point of Fleugel’s comments, and more information on the FARMS review that is far from accurate, and quite self-serving)