Continuing
from the last post in which Mormon’s descriptions of the Land of Promise were
covered, the question was asked, “Why did Mormon include so much and so
detailed geographical information?”
Obviously,
Mormon didn’t include geographical information for scholars today to dispute
and argue over, any more than the Biblical writers wrote their books thinking
people would argue over what they wrote—yet there are some 40,000 different
Christian denominations at last count, each using the exact same scriptures as
the basis of their religion.
In
the case of the Book of Mormon, it is not a matter of disputing the statements
of doctrine, as in the various Christian religions, but a matter of disputing
the meaning of geographical information among those trying to locate the Land
of Promise among today’s geography.
The
problem seems to stem from one basic source—that of Mesoamerican Theorists who claim
that area is the site of the Book of Mormon Land of Promise. To understand
this, we need to retrace the steps of the LDS thinking in the early days of the
Church.
Simply
put, when Joseph Smith told others of his First Vision in which he saw God the
Father, and his son, Jesus Christ, he was met with such strong opposition,
including that from local ministers, he was astounded. From that time forth
there was a concentrated effort from the surrounding communities to ridicule and defame Joseph and his claim.
When the Church was organized and the Book of Mormon in publication, early
members were eager to learn more of the ancient people called the Nephites
found within its page. When the ancient ruins of Mexico, Yucatan and
Guatemala were discovered, many members and scholars began trying to show that
this was the area of the Book of Mormon. It became the pet view of M. Wells Jakeman, the founder and first chairman of the department of archaeology at BYU. In time, certain early scholars at BYU and later elsewhere began
touting Mesoamerica as the home of the Nephite nation.
Studies
were made, books written, trips arranged, and soon the idea of Mesoamerica as
the home of the Book of Mormon within the Church, especially at BYU, came into the LDS consciousness. Archaeology
began at the University and it was all centered in Mesoamerica. In 1953, Jakeman, erroneously
claimed the carved stela found at Izapa (Izapa Stela 5) was the Lehi Tree of
Life Stone, which swept through the church like wildfire for many years.
However, many scholars with the requisite technical training, knowledge, and
experience in this area, some LDS and some not, examined the stone and Dr.
Jakeman's interpretation of it--their conclusions were all the same: Professor
Jakeman's interpretation was not correct.
Replica of the Chiapas Izapa Stela 5 “Tree
of Life Stone” presented to West Valley City, Utah, by Chiapas. Standing beside
it is Donald W. Lowe, son of Gareth W. Lowe, who was field director of BYU’s
New World Archaeological Foundation and directed excavation of the Stela 5 site
in the 1960s
However,
this did not deter Jakeman and other scholars who followed at BYU, such as John L. Sorenson, in teaching,
claiming, and writing about Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise. Sorenson, head of the Department of Anthropology at BYU and now emeritus, wrote
his landmark book, “An American Setting
for the Book of Mormon,” and in it took extreme license with the scriptural
record, twisting and turning Mormon’s writing to agree with Mesoamerican
topography and geography. Along came FARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and
Mormon Studies), founded by John W. Welch, of which Sorenson was part for 28
years, an organization dedicated to studies connecting the Book of Mormon with
Mesoamerica (today, this group is called Neal A. Maxwell Institute and is
involved in LDS historical scholarship, but the archaeology has always been
centered on Mesoamerica).
As
an example of twisting and turning the scriptural record, Sorenson in his book,
and Mesoamerican Theorists today, among others claim:
1.
The Land of Promise really ran east and west as does Mesoamerica, not north and south as the scriptural record shows;
2.
Nephi and others did not know directions as we do today and didn’t know the
directions of the Land of Promise;
3.
Mormon’s day and a half journey was really meant for a marathon runner or the
like and is over 120 miles;
4.
The Land Northward was really to the west of the Land Southward;
5.
Land of Desolation was to the west of the Land of Bountiful;
6.
Where no distances are stated in the scriptural record, they provide short
distances to fit Mesoamerica;
7.
Ignore clearly stated scripture and use their own interpretation, such as with
the Mulekite landing in the Land Northward;
8.
Involve Jaredites among 1) Mulekites, 2) Lamanites, and 3) Nephites; though the scriptural record shows no connection at all other than Coriantumr for 9 months;
9.
Claiming the narrow neck of land was 120 miles across (144 by foot);
10.
Creating a land to the east of the Land of Nephi, though the Land of Nephi ran
from sea to sea;
11.
Claiming the destruction in 3 Nephi 8 was only cosmetic and really didn't alter the land view;
12.
Claiming other indigenous people were in the Land of Promise, even before Lehi
arrived despite the promise to Lehi that the Land would he his;
13.
Claiming the Nephite copper or dark skin blended them in with indigenous
Indians already in the land of promise when Lehi arrived;
14.
Claiming other indigenous people of numerous languages were in the land of
promise;
15.
Claiming indigenous people in the land of promise taught the Lehi colony how to
plant seeds when they arrived, and that Nephite diseases killed off the
indigenous people;
16.
Claiming the Nephites were not literate;
17.
Claiming the Lamanites were not dark skinned;
18.
Claiming the Nephites hated the Lamanites and spoke ill of them and described
them as far worse than they were;
19.
Claiming not all Jaredites were killed off, only the ruling line;
20. Claiming linen and silk, horses, elephants,
metallurgy, etc., in the scriptural record meant something else.
This
list of 20 items is only a glimpse of all those errors, changes, alterations,
stretches, and outright disagreements Sorenson makes with the scriptural record
in his book and later publications (for a more complete list, see the book Inaccuracies of Mesoamerican and Other Theorists).
The
point is, Mormon gave us an exact and clear glimpse of the Land of Promise.
Changing or altering Mormon’s descriptions, or explaining away why they meant
something else, is not worthy of a scholarly effort, let alone an inspired understanding of the Book of
Mormon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhatever exact and clear glimpse of the Land of Promise the Book of Mormon gives us is more than obfuscated by the writer of this review, who never quite gets beyond his criticisms to show us the error of the Mesoamerican theory or the more compelling theory he/she may hold to.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you would care to read more of our comments about Mesoamerica, for in them we have taken every single point about Mesoamerica and compared it with scripture in order to show that their model simply does not agree with Mormon's many descriptions. It is not that we are critical of Mesoameria, we are critical of those who misuse, misinterpret, change or alter the scriptural record in order to promote their pre-determined location and view. I would address you to the book "Inaccuracies of Mesoamerican and other Theorists" for a complete coverage of several Mesoamerican theorists writings and claims and comparing them to the scriptural record
ReplyDeleteWhere is this book available that you mention?
ReplyDelete