Lehi’s Landing According to Nephi (not Williams) – Part I

Despite what is written on the back of Frederick G. Williams paper regarding Lehi landing at 30º south Latitude in Chile—and the controversy surrounding that statement—Lehi landed somewhere and wherever that was, it had to be consistent with what Nephi wrote about their landing.

Theorists cannot simply pick out a place because they like it, or it meets some other criteria—it has to meet what Nephi wrote—for he is the only one who wrote about their specific landing site.

And what did he say regarding their landing?

“And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land…and we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance…and we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper” (1 Nephi 18:23-25).

So they:

1. Went forth upon the land;

2. Pitched their tents;

3. Called it the Land of Promise;

4. Tilled the earth;

5. Planted all their seed brought from Jerusalem—which produced an abundance crop that grew exceedingly;

Nephi and the others journeyed in the land and saw forest, precious metals, and animals

 

6. There was a nearby forest that was large enough to house both wild beasts and previously domesticated (feral) animals;

7. And they found all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper, without digging for it.

Why there is a controversy over Frederick G. Williams note is surprising since Nephi’s statements are the only ones that matter. He tells us quite plainly what was found where they landed, and his statements are precisely clear and inarguable! Nephi found tillable (capable of being tilled; arable; fit for the plow) ground in which they put all their seeds brought from Jerusalem.

Now, tillable ground is that which is ready for the plow—but plowing must follow the tilling, or loosening of the earth for the plow. Whether or not Nephi plowed is unknown, but he did till the ground, that is scratched and turned it over lightly, sufficient with a rake-type instrument to insert and cover seeds.

As has been stated here many times, the climate of the land where they landed must have been the same as the climate of the land from which the seeds grew—i.e., Jerusalem, a Mediterranean Climate. And there are only two such climates in the entire Western Hemisphere—California and 30º south Latitude Chile.

The fact that Frederick G. Williams is noted as being this same place is supportive, not conclusive—However, Nephi’s statement is conclusive!

In order to discredit Williams’ (far left) statement, Mesoamerican and Heartland theorists have gone to great lengths to discount what Williams wrote on the piece of paper including his  son, BYU professor Grederick G. Williams, Jr., (left)—however, discounting Williams remark is not the issue and never was. The issue has always been Nephi’s statement in the scriptural record—and that cannot be discounted.

Whether an angel, as Williams claimed, came in and sat down next to him during the dedication of the Kirtland Temple is also not the issue—the issue is what Nephi wrote and described. Everything else is either supportive or rejective.

Mesoamerican theorists claim that characters and the statement on the back of the Williams paper written by Ezra G. Williams, Frederick’s son, which reads: “G. S. L. City, April 11, 1864. This paper is in the hand writing of my father, Fred G. Williams. The characters thereon I believe to be a representation of those shown to him at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple,” discloses several important facts such as: (1) While Ezra knows that the page is in his father’s handwriting, (2) he only believes the characters had something to do with the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. (3) Nothing ties Ezra’s statement on the back to any of the four items on the front (indeed, it makes no sense to link Doctrine and Covenants 7 from 1829 to the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in 1836). Furthermore, Ezra does not attribute the statement about Lehi’s travels (4) to Joseph or (5) to revelation.

No matter the difference of opinion in the value of William’ statement on the paper, it does not matter what specific importance one attributes to the Williams note—it is not Williams views that matter here, but those expressed by Nephi in the scriptural record!

Forget all the heated rhetoric about Williams’ note, his remarks on the paper, and where he thought Lehi landed. Once again, the only thing that really matters, as in all such cases, is what is said about the matter in the Book of Mormon. And Nephi is very clear—he said upon landing that  they:

1. Went forth upon the land;

2. Pitched their tents (to provide shelter);

3. Called it the Land of Promise, which the Lord provided for them;

4. Tilled the earth to plant food for the coming season when their provisions, hunting and fishing ran out;

5. Planted all their seed brought from Jerusalem—a Mediterranean Climate in a like Mediterranean Climate of south central Chile, which produced an abundance crop that grew exceedingly;

6. There was a nearby forest that was large enough to house both wild beasts and previously domesticated (feral) animals,providing both food and domestic help (ie., moving things about, carrying items; logging, and other transportation;

7. And they found all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper, without digging for it, and began to produce metallurgy, which at least Nephi, was capable of doing (1 Nephi 17:9).

Map of Heartland Laneding—no forests,no precious metals, no wild beasts

 

Now in looking at the Heartland model, there was no extensive forest where Lehi landed—Apalachicola has a humid subtropical (Köppen Cfa), with short, mild winters and hot, humid summers. In addition, Wakulla Springs, a 350 foot deep spring sytem, is located in a region known as the Woodville Karst Plain—and area that runs from Tallahassee, Florida, to the Gulf of Mexico, separated by the Cody Scarp—because the area contains numerous springs, sinkholes and a submerged limestone cave systems formed by the dissolving of limestone over thousands of years and consisting of a dendritic network of conduits of which 12 miles have been surveyed and mapped.

Only in the United States? Erroneous List of Heartland Matches – Part VI – DNA Pt2

According to his own advertising, Rod Meldrum “effectively and powerfully” addresses, and provides supporting evidence that answers both of these fundamental questions: 1) data found on a genome related to present-day western Eurasian populations; and 2) modern Native Americans, not from East Asia—historically a puzzling finding.

In his article, Meldrum claims, ancient DNA researcher Eske Willerslev (left), the director of the Center for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, who uses ancient DNA to reconstruct the past 50,000 years of human history, has come up with information that has enriched our understanding of prehistory, shedding light on human development with evidence that can’t be found in pottery shards or studies of living cultures.

Willerslev claims that his [DNA] study changes previous ideas because it shows that a significant minority of Native American ancestry actually derives not from East Asia but from a people related to present-day western Eurasians.” In his report, Willerslev also states: “It’s approximately one-third of the genome, and that is a lot—so in that regard I think it’s changing quite a bit of the history.”

Dr. Willerslev led the first successful sequencing of an ancient human genome, that of a 4,000-year-old Greenlander. His research on a 24,000-year-old Siberian skeleton revealed an unexpected connection between Europeans and Native Americans

Meldrum adds: “In addition, it goes back to the very foundations of the geographical theories to bring to light the knowledge that Joseph Smith had on the subject as well as an in-depth study of the internal geographic indications from The Book of Mormon itself.  All of this information has now, for the first time, been combined to produce a clear geographical picture that is exciting because of its solid foundation of evidence that supports the validity and truthfulness of this literal ancient record. You are invited to explore the information from this article for yourself and ask the source of all truth of its validity.”

Meldrum than asks “Could Genetics help us discover the geography of the Book of Mormon? What if we found ‘European’ style DNA in the America’s, just not where we thought it would be?  Could it lead to a new geographical paradigm that also fits the prophecies found in the Book of Mormon itself as well as validates the prophetic statements of Joseph Smith on the matter at the same time?

Possible”Book of Mormon” DNA Markers  

 

According to Meldrum, “the blending of Mulekite/Nephite/Lamanite peoples are shown throughout the Plates of Mormon. The finding of DNA markers in both Jewish and Egyptian cultures within Native Americans has been demonstrated and parallels what would be expected within the text of the Book of Mormon. Also, the Mulekites and Lamanites may have mixed indigenous people, thereby diluting the founding DNA markets. However, among the Algonquian peoples (haplogroupX) comprised up to 25% of mtDNA types (the Peopling of the Amerias, Genetic Ancncestry influences heathth, Phys.Org, 14 August 2009).

Meldrum goes on to say: “The answer is an emphatic, Yes! Genetics could help us discover the true geography of the Book of Mormon, if we follow the evidence, rather than theoretical assumptions.” These articles above do just that, Meldrum claims—following the scientific evidence that leads to some conclusions about the geography of the Book of Mormon that finally makes sense and is consistent with the Book of Mormon itself and the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Meldrum concludes his remarks, saying: “The article, Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA is taken from peer reviewed scientific journals consistent with scientific research. Other forms of validation are brought to bear on the subject based on a firm belief in the truthfulness and validity of the gospel, the scriptures, revealed truths through living prophets, and Biblical history. Scientific methodology was used throughout the project in creating a ‘Hierarchy of Evidence’ for determination of which evidence ‘trumps’ other evidence based on a scale.”  Sound scientific reasoning and an understanding of the scriptural basis for beginning a learning process are addressed. This information, while potentially very interesting to non-LDS people is specifically geared to address the LDS communities unique understanding of the need for truth as defined by Joseph Smith through modern day revelation. This places this information firmly in the pro-LDS camp, as an underlying assumption going into this research is that the Church and its gospel are true. All scientists bring their presuppositions with them into their study, and this is no different. For disclosure sake, it is important to make this very clear.”

Now with all of this ammunition Meldrum brings to bear, one might be tempted to accept his remarks as a “proof” of Book of Mormon DNA—he certainly presents it in that fashion. However, we need to understanding what the official position of the Church is before making up our minds about Meldrum’s information.

Church Response:

In covering the DNA question and the Book of Mormon, the Church states:

The explanations fall into one of three primary categories.

What was the DNA of Lehi’s family and party that landed in the Land of Promise?

 

1. We don’t have DNA samples from any of Lehi’s party, so we don’t even know what types of DNA we are looking to find;

2. Lehi’s group was small and as they (later) intermingled with the existing Asian populations, their DNA was diluted to the point that it is no longer traceable;

3. It is possible that a ‘genetic bottleneck’ occurred that extinguished the DNA markers found in the original Book of Mormon peoples.

These explanations are used to excuse the lack of DNA evidence in Central or Mesoamerica, in order to defend these geographical theories. This has lead LDS apologetic groups to claim that DNA research and findings cannot be used either to falsify the claims of the Book of Mormon, nor to provide evidence in it’s support. 

As a classic example of this argument read the Deseret News/Mormon Times article by Roger l. Hardy (Dec 11, 2008, 1:01am MST) and also Daniel Petersen, a BYU Professor and a very vocal LDS apologist who is also a strong advocate of the Mesoamerican hypothesis.  He mentions all three while promoting a new book on DNA which is actually mostly a collection of previously published articles, some of which are quite old in terms of the current DNA research field they are addressing.  

While each of these explanations have merit and are justifiably employed in defence of the Book of Mormon’s claims, there is another aspect that must be addressed. No less than seven times in the scriptures there are specific claims that in the latter days, there would remain on the Promised Land a “remnant” of the “House of Israel” or Lehi’s posterity which came through the lineage of Joseph of Egypt and his son Manasseh.  Some LDS apologists have claimed that they ‘don’t expect to find” any DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. 

Why would any member of the church not expect to find evidence of the Book of Mormon’s claim that there will be a ‘remnant seed’ still in existence in the latter days?  How can there be a ‘remnant’ if there is no actual genetic (DNA) connection to this lineage?  This is the reason that I did not feel comfortable with the answers being provided by the LDS apologetic community, which created the desire for me to begin this research in 2003 and continue it today in 2019.  Since the Book of Mormon is true (as previously admitted to as my bias) it stands to reason that it’s claims that Lehi’s seed would not be utterly destroyed must indicate that their genetics would still be found in order to fulfill the promises made by the Lord. 

If there is no genetic remnant, how can there be a differentiation between those who are actual descendants, and those who are Gentiles who are ‘grafted into’ the House of Israel?  Why then would the Lord make that distinction?

Additional questions:

1. Native Americans may have a more complicated heritage than previously believed.

2. Photograph by Roland W. Reed, National Geographic

Western Eurasia covers most of Europe and is the westernmost section of the Palearctic realm with 5 major subrealms -- Greater European Forests, European Mountain Forests, Black Sea Forests & Steppe, the Mediterranean, and the British Isles -- and 13 bioregions in total as defined in the Bioregions 2020 framework

The West Eurasian markers

 

3. "Great Surprise"—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins

4. Oldest human genome reveals less of an East Asian ancestry than thought.

5. By Brian Handwerk National Geography Published November 22, 2013

When the Winter Olympic games were held in Salt Lake City in 2002, President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked by a reporter if he had a comment about the lack of DNA evidence for the Book of Mormon. He simply responded that all the information wasn’t in yet. Eleven years later, in 2013, National Geographic Magazine published an article titled: “Great Surprise”—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins.”

Clearly, the article appears to be an “official” rebuttal to the Heartlanders’ teachings about DNA and the Book of Mormon. When the Church “speaks out” as in such cases, members naturally should pay attention, read between the lines, and order their lives so they will not be in conflict with an official stance of the Church.

In response to such publications, the Church recently placed on its website, www.lds.org, an article that “officially” lays out the stance of the Church toward DNA evidence for Book of Mormon purposes. The conclusion of the article states the following: “Much as critics and defenders of the Book of Mormon would like to use DNA studies to support their views, the evidence is simply inconclusive. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples. Even if such information were known, processes such as population bottleneck, genetic drift, and post–Columbian immigration from West Eurasia make it unlikely that their DNA could be detected today.

Another case of a theorsit getting ahead of the doctrines of the Church and in so doing dragging members along with them in their enthusiasm to prove the Book of Mormon on limited or even inaccurate information. DNA is not all in—there is much left to be discovered and understood—it is subject left to the scientists to compile all of the data before taking a stand.

Only in the United States? Erroneous List of Heartland Matches – Part V - DNA

Since around 2008, Heartlanders have attempted to use DNA evidence to prove their geography of the Book of Mormon—tht is, that all New World events of the Book of Mormon took place in the continental United States from the Great Lakes on the North to the Gulf of Mexico on the south.

Rod L. Meldrum, one of the leaders of the Hearthand theory has written several DNA-related publications in support of their model, (including his book, Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA, Digital Legend, Mendon, NY, 2009).

Under an article entitled “Why is finding “Lamanite” DNA in the America’s Important?” Meldrum lists the so-called millions of mounds he considers to be in the Eastern United States, which by extrapolation would have reqired, he claimed, millions of people to build. He answers his own question in another book titled The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Native American Mounds & Earthworks. This answer is: “The most common question that is asked about mounds is, “How many exist?” In the 1800’s the Smithsonian sponsored many expeditions to identify mound sites across America. A map was produced by Cyrus Thomas in 1894 in a Bureau of Ethnology book. They found approximately 100,000 mound sites, many with complexes containing 2 to 100 mounds. The figure of 100,000 mounds once existing—based on Cyrus Thomas map revealing 100,000 sites—is often cited by others, but that estimate is far, far too low.

After visiting several thousand mounds and reviewing the literature, Meldrum claims that he is  fairly certain that over 1,000,000 mounds once existed and that perhaps 100,000 still exist. Oddly, some new mound sites are discovered each year by archaeological surveys in remote areas. But in truth, a large majority of America’s mounds have been completely destroyed by farming, construction, looting, and deliberate total excavations” (Gregory L. Little, Ed.D., “The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Native American Mounds & Earthworks,” Eagle Wing Books, Inc., Memphis, TN, 2009).

Newark Earthworks in Newark, New Jersey

 

Some of these great mounds were larger than any pyramids in Egypt. For example, “the Newark Earthworks in Newark and Heath, Ohio, consist of three sections of preserved earthworks—however, despite Meldrum’s fanciful wordage, these mounds while covering a great footprint on the ground, rival the pyramids in no other way.

Monumental Newark Earth Works that originally covered 4½  square miles and 7 million cubic feet of earth; however, its height never exceeded eye-level and falls far short of the magnificent Great Pyramid of Giza (also known as the Pyramid of Khufu or the Pyramid of Cheops) is the oldest and largest of the pyramids in the Giza pyramid complex bordering present-day Giza in Greater Cairo, Egypt.

As usual, Meldrum gets a little beyohd reality as he explains his theory. Neither the Great Circle Earthworks, the Octagon Earthworks, and the Wright Earthworks come close to rivaling the Great Pyramids of Egypt, though covering more ground.

This complex, claimed to have been built by the Hopewell culture between 100 and 500 AD contains the largest earthen enclosures in the world, and was about 3,000 acres in total extent. 

The Great Circle Mound

 

Less than 10 percent of the total site has been preserved since European-American settlement; this area contains a total of 206 acres (83 ha). It is operated as a state park by the Ohio History Connection. A designated National Historic Landmark, in 2006 the Newark Earthworks was also designated as the “official prehistoric monument of the State of Ohio.”

As for the DNA, Meldrum points out that the three primary races of the earth, Asian (Oriental), African (Negroid) and European (Caucasian) are quite easily distinguished from each other through specific DNA markers or ‘signatures’ that delineate their ancestry.

Meldrum writes that the Book of Mormon states that the descendants of Lehi, (including his wife Sariah, Ishmael and his wife, and Zoram) lived and multiplied to a great extent somewhere in the America’s. Since he claims it is quite highly probable that Sariah, Ishmael, and Zoram were also of the same genetic stock (not Asian or African), their genetic signatures today would most certainly be classified by present day geneticists as ‘European’ rather than Asian or African. According to Meldrum, we do not know the exact makeup of Lehi’s DNA, but that does not preclude us from being able to make a direct connection to his ‘European/ Caucasian” heritage.

The density of three Haplogroup X

 

According to Meldrum, preliminary DNA studies, performed on thousands of individual Native Americans from the Aleuts in Alaska, through North, Central, and South America, were completed.  They were tested, studied and classified into one of 4 primary genetic groups called haplogroups. These four founding groups, designated Haplogroups A, B, C and D are all Asian-based groups found in modern populations of Siberia and Asia today, which supports, Meldrum claims, the dominant theory of the peopling of the New World (the America’s) by an overland migration across the Bering Strait during an ice age epoch.

Initial studies, he states, indicated that there were no European type genetic DNA markers, which would lead to the conclusion that no migration or population expansion of an ‘Israelite’ group occurred anywhere in the America’s as is indicated by the Book of Mormon. This led to some LDS scientists viewing this as the ‘final straw’ for their belief and some were subsequently excommunicated from the church after writing books contrary to the teachings and doctrine of the gospel, but based on these initial scientific findings.

A small ‘Christian ministry’ capitalized on this small group of LDS scholars and scientists who left or were excommunicated from the church and documented their feelings and findings, producing a very powerful anti-Mormon video documentary, selling tens of thousands of copies since its introduction in early 2003. The revenue produced by this documentary has funded other ‘anti-Mormon’ videos. 

Is there a Problem with those who say there is no DNA Evidence? The problem is twofold. The anti-Mormon documentary producers were premature in their conclusions regarding DNA studies in the America’s as the research was not yet complete at the time of the release of their video. The second problem is that in order for DNA to be found relating to Book of Mormon people, we must be sure that we are looking for it in the correct location.  What chance is there of finding supportive DNA or any other physical evidence for the truth of The Book of Mormon if we are looking for it in the wrong place?

The article presents data on a genome found that is related to present-day western Eurasian populations and modern Native Americans, not from East Asia—historically a puzzling finding.) In the article, Meldrum claims, ancient DNA researcher Eske Willerslev, of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. stated: “This [DNA] study changes this idea because it shows that a significant minority of Native American ancestry actually derives not from East Asia but from a people related to present-day western Eurasians.” Willerslev also said: “It’s approximately one-third of the genome, and that is a lot,” he added. “So in that regard I think it’s changing quite a bit of the history” – Published November 22, 2013.

(See the next post for a continuation of Meldrum’s DNA claims and the Church's official response to DNA)

Only in the United States? Erroneous List of Heartland Matches – Part III

Continuing from te last post, we find that another Heartland theorist, Jonathan Neville, who claims there was but one hill Cumorah, cites Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII to W.W. Phelps for publication, containing the standard understanding to the Church regarding the final Nephite-Lamanite battle. This is another example of using a General Authority belief or opinions and claiming it is doctrinal because it had the possible backing of Joseph Smith—however, it has been said: “We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself.

He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be. In May 1844 Joseph declared, “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.”

Joseph was a mortal man striving to fulfill an overwhelming divinely appointed mission against all odds. The wonder is not that he ever displayed human failings, but that he succeeded in his mission. His fruits are both undeniable and incomparable (G. Todd Christofferson, “The Prophet Joseph Smith,” devotional, BYU Idaho, 24 September 2013, 14:15-15:30). 

Imperfect men have always run the Church, and imperfect men are subject to being inaccurate when the speak for themselves and not for God

 

To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men (Dieter F. Uchdorf, “Come Join With Us,” General Conference, October 2013).

In an example of this, Oliver Cowdery (left) expands on a brief 107-word inserted statement by Mormon who wrote: “And it came to pass that my people, with their wives and their children, did now behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them. And it came to pass that they came to battle against us, and every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers. And it came to pass that they did fall upon my people with the sword, and with the bow, and with the arrow, and with the ax, and with all manner of weapons of war” (Mormon 6:7-9).

However, Oliver waxes poetic as he inserts a 1,038-word explanation of this event, expanding on what Mormon briefly narrated. Describing these events in his own wordage using his own opinions in wordage about ten times the amount of words as Mormon needed, Oliver puts words into the descriptive event neither inserted by Mormon nor intended.

Perhaps there can be no greater example of a General Authority (Oliver Cowdery was the First Counselor in the First Presidency to Joseph Smith at the time) using his own opinions to describe a scriptural event, where those words have been written and used time and again, even extended into a full book (Johnathan Neville, Letter VII, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, September 21, 2015), suggesting Church sponsorship and Joseph Smith agreement.

As George Q. Cannon, an early member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and who served in the First Presidency under four successive presidents of the church: Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow, put it: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men (George Q. Cannon, “Need For Personal Testimonies,” 15 February 1891; Collected Discourses 2:178; Millennial Star 53:658–659, 673–675).

Good but imperfect prophets are especially likely to be slandered. Nor are they immune from trials. In fact, of the responsibilities of priesthood leaders, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station.” President John Taylor further said, “God tries people according to the position they occupy” (Neal A. Maxwell, Promise of Discipleship (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 2001), chapter 10).

Of course, we have prophets today. Will they lead us astray? Is that statement even true that they won't? The prophets will not lead us astray from the Gospel path. Can they be incorrect on other issues-even involving the Church? Yes, they can. When they claim revelation and follow proper procedures (vote of the Church) to make something binding, then we bow to that.

Brigham Young presented no formal revelation for implementing the priesthood restriction and there is none that can justify the ban's existence. When the prophets haven't received revelation and are perhaps just trying to do good of their own free will as has been divinely mandated (D&C 58:27-28), then it is possible that they may get something wrong. We all have our free agency (2 Nephi 2: 16, 27; 10:23;) and the doctrine of infallibility is in direct contradiction to free agency.

In addition, not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), are the official declarations and proclamations, along with the Articles of Faith.

On occasion, isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

The purpose of these comments is not to belittle leadership of the Church and/or highlight mistakes, if any, made. Once again, we state as so many Presidents and General Authorities before us have stated, that “God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.” This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men.

The Final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites as described by Oliver Cowdery

 

Therefore, it is foolhardy to rely on a single outburst of information, description, or series of claims that run contrary to the doctrines of the Church. Whether it be Oliver Cowdery in his Letter VII, Joseph Smith supporting John Lloyd Stephens conclusions about Mesoamerican ruins, or his forelorn letter to his wife describing crossing the Plains of the Nephites in Zion’s Camp. These are opinions, and there is not a single doctrinal support, in or out of the Book of Mormon to support these specific comments.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1954–56, 3:203–204).

It is obvious, then, that Oliver Cowdery is using his own opinions to describe the final Nephite-Lamanite battle at the Hill Cumorah since it runs contrary to the doctrines of the Church—i.e., the Church has no official statement or position where Lehi landed, where the final battle took place, nor where the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon was located (only the Hill Cumorah where Joseph Smith obtained the plates).

Only in the United States? Erroneous List of Heartland Matches – Part II

 Continuing with Rod L. Meldrum and Bruce H. Porter’s inventory of thirty-six prophecies and promises, listing passages that they believe show “the American land of promise” to be solely within the United States. In regard to this list, some of which were discussed in the previous post, another very important point is left out of their 36 items that are crucial to a better understanding of the occurrences Porter and Meldrum cite, and that is their oft quoted Joseph Smith and General Authority remarks, as though they were Church doctrine. 

 As an example, Joseph Smith was given a two-volume set of books written by John Lloyd Stephens (far left), the American writer, explorer and diplomat, and illustrated by traveling companion, British artist, architect and explorer Frederick Catherwood (left)—best known for is evocative illustrations of the Mayan ruins. Upon first meeting, it did not take Stephens and Catherwood long for the two to realize their common desire to explore the lost Maya cities, which produced the book: Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatán, in 1841, eleven years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

Alongside Stephen’s eloquent descriptions and vivid anecdotes, Catherwood’s wonderful drawings ignited the imaginations of the western world. The book was a runaway bestseller, taking America by storm and selling 20,000 copies in the first three months of publication. Their success encouraged a second expedition, during which the men spent ten grueling months visiting more than 40 Mayan sites, most of which were entirely unknown to the outside world.

Both Stephens and Catherwood were astonished at the exquisitely carved “idols” and altars and the massiveness of the buildings of the ancient city of Copan. They knew they were exploring the ruins of a civilization that rivaled or exceeded those of the Old World. At the outset, Stephens expressed his fundamental conclusion after they had cleared away the debris from the first stela they investigated

Armed with his images of Chichén Itzá, Uxmel, and Tulum, Catherwood returned to New York to work on his second book, Incidents of Travel in Yucatán—which made up the two-volume set that ended up as a gift in the hands of Joseph Smith at a time when people in general scoffed at an advanced ancient civilization as introduced and spelled out in the Book of Mormon—“Nonsense!” roared scientists and public alike. Indians had never progressed beyond savagery. Americans of that age could believe in almost anything other than an “Indian” civilization, in spite of evidence from the conquest. Such proofs were either ignored or downgraded as Spanish public-relations puffery. Scholars and historians held fast to their antiquated beliefs and scorned Stephens’ efforts.

The two volume set of books, however, which showed the world there really had been just such an advanced civilization in the Western Hemisphere, prompted Joseph Smith to remark that “It will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephen’s ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon; light cleaves to light, and facts are supported
by facts. The truth injures no one” (Times & Seasons, “Truth will prevail,” Vol. III, No.23, City of Nauvoo, October 1,1842).

Joseph Smith had the courage to press forward in Book of Mormon archaeology/history research, “to assist the Saints in establishing the Book of Mormon as a revelation from God,” which was his last statement before the Oct. 1, 1842 extract).

The articles were printed in the Times and Seasons, the Church’s official newspaper that was published in Nauvoo, Illinois, between the dates of November 1839–February 1846. During that time, the editorship of the Times and Seasons changed hands on several occasions. The first issue of the Times and Seasons that was edited by Joseph Smith was the March 1, 1842, issue in volume three, and he continued in the role of editor throughout the rest of volume three until October 15, 1842.

No reliable information has yet been discovered regarding the extent Joseph read Stephens’s volumes or discussed them with colleagues. Under the date of June 25, 1842, either Joseph Smith or the compilers of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints noted the following: “Messrs. Stephens and Catherwood have succeeded in collecting in the interior of America a large amount of relics of the Nephites, or the ancient inhabitants of America treated of in the Book of Mormon, which relics have recently been landed in New York.”

It should be noted that according to the authors of the statement, that this phrasing, “interior of America,” is attributed either to Joseph Smith or to compilers of History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and strongly suggests or shows that Joseph believed in the definition of America as contained in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary. That is, “interior,” they claim clearly refers to the territory of Mesoamerica—however, contrary to their claim, “interior” in 1828 was formed from inter or intra, in or within, and meant: “Internal; being within any limits, inclosure or substance; inner; opposed to exterior or superficial; as the inland or remote from the limits, frontier or shore—as the interior parts of a country, state or kingdom.

Obviously, laying claim to Mesoamerica for the “interior of America,” is inaccurate. The Interior of America was considered the area of the vast plains. In fact, during the first decade of the nineteenth century, the geographic image of western North America began to change dramatically. Based on the observations of Lewis and Clark, information gathered from native people, and Clark's own cartographic work, this image evolved from an almost empty interior with a hypothetical single mountain range serving as a western continental divide, to an intricate one showing a tangle of mountains and rivers. A continent that had once seemed empty and simple was now becoming full and complex.

Route of Lewis and Clark

 

In mid-July 1806 Lewis and Clark, a year after Joseph Smith was born, were on their way back from the Pacific. At the same time a young army Lieutenant Zebulon Montgomery Pike left St. Louis with twenty-three men to reconnoiter the Spanish borderlands. Unlike the other expeditions commissioned by Jefferson, Pike did not travel by the command of the president. Instead, he took his orders from General James Wilkinson, governor of the Louisiana Territory and sometime secret agent for the Spanish.

Pike carried out two expeditions for Wilkinson. The first (August 1805–April 1806) took him up the Mississippi River into present-day Minnesota. The second expedition began in July 1806 and drew to a close in late June 1807. As drafted by Wilkinson, Pike's instructions took the explorer into lands that were part of the Spanish empire. And in February 1807, near present-day Alamosa, Colorado, Spanish forces took Pike and his men into custody. Pike was a spy but just who he was spying for remains an open question.

Pike's account of his southwestern adventures, published in 1810, drew additional attention to the region and its possible future as part of an expanding American empire. Thus, rather than to any territory in Mesoamerica, the interior or America dealt directly with that of the continental United States. The rather casual diary entry prepared by Joseph Smith or by the compilers of History of the Church also shows his support for the John Lloyd Stephens 1842 Times and Seasons articles that analysts have traditionally been wary of attributing directly to Joseph.

The Joseph Smith Papers Project personnel will perhaps use this journal entry as positive evidence in support of labeling the 1842 Times and Seasons articles as “Joseph Smith documents.” This because the quotation shows that either Joseph or the compilers of History of the Church authored the quotation or second, because the quotation either shows the 1842 thinking of Joseph about Mesoamerica as recorded by Joseph or the compilers’ subsequent understanding about the 1842 thinking of Joseph about Mesoamerica (Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 1980, 5:44).

Where the controversy arises is what Joseph Smith said, or printed, or agreed to have printed regarding the Mesoamerica area and Stephens and Catherwood’s work. However, the problem is not what was said by Joseph, but the weight attached to the statement. It was Joseph Smith himself who wrote in his diary on February 8, 1843: “A Prophet is not always a Prophet' only when he is acting as suc.” He also said, “When I speak as a man it is Joseph only that speaks. But when the Lord speaks through me, it is no longer Joseph Smith who speaks; but it is God, and let all Israel hear” (Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus, They Knew the Prophet, Bookcraft, 1974, p.84).

It is not believed that everything a prophet says is inspired by God (and nor do the prophets themselves think such). Prophets are human beings who God has chosen to speak through—but not everything they say is being said by God. Joseph Smith said that “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" (History of the Church 5:265).

This means that “a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church”( Words of Joseph Smith, 130, citing Nauvoo Relief Society Minutes).

Now, was not Joseph Smith a mortal man? Yes. A fallible man? Yes. Had he not weaknesses? Yes, he acknowledged them himself, and did not fail to put the revelations on record in this book (The Book of Doctrine and Covenants) wherein God reproved him. His weaknesses were not concealed from the people. He was willing that people should know that he was mortal, and had failings. And so with Brigham Young. Was not he a mortal man, a man who had weaknesses? He was not a God. He was not an immortal being. He was not infallible. No, he was fallible. And yet when he spoke by the power of God, it was the word of God to this people”(George Q. Cannon, August 12, 1883. Journal of Discourses 24:274). The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible (12  George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, 1:206).

Thus, just because Joseph Smith stated in one form or another, in the Times & Seasons or elsewhere, that the drawings of Catherwood’s Maya sites showed evidence of the Nephite Nation, does not mean necessarily that it was Nephite per se, but that the magnificent Nephite Nation’s

presence in ancient America was verified by this example of an advanced ancient people. Had it been stated doctrinally in nature, it would be part of the doctrine of the Church today.