Was Polynesia Settled from South America? – Part I

Polynesia is a sub-region of Oceania, made up of more than 1,000 islands scattered over the central and southern Pacific Ocean. The indigenous people who inhabit these islands are termed Polynesians, and share many similar traits including language family, culture, and beliefs. The area is shaped somewhat like a large triangle, with Hawaii at the top, New Zealand to the southwest and Rapa Nui (Easter Island) to the southeast.

The three cultural areas in the Pacific Ocean: Melanesia (black islands), Micronesia (small islands), and Polynesia (many islands)

In 1962, Apostle Mark E. Petersen stated: “As Latter-day Saints we have always believed that the Polynesians are descendants of Lehi and blood relatives of the American Indians, despite the contrary theories of other men” (Mark E. Peterson, Conference Report, April 1962, p1112). In 1971, Spencer W. Kimball said, “With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea…they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand.
    Today we have many Lamanite leaders in the Church…The term Lamanite  includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people…There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled–-you, the Lamanites–-when you are righteous. You are of royal blood, the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Lehi” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971, p7).
    In 1984, Apostle Howard W. Hunter stated: “It has been the position of the Church that Polynesians are related to the American Indians as descendants of Father Lehi, having migrated to the Pacific from America—our belief in this regard is scriptural—see Alma 63:4-10” (Howard W. Hunter, “Islands of the Pacific,’ Beneficial Life Insurance Company Convention, Waikokloa Hawaii, 19 July 1984 (in Clyde J. Williams, ed., The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1997, p57).

Left: Mark E. Peterson; Center; Spencer W. Kimball; Right; Howard W. hunter

There seems to be little question among past Apostles and Church Presidents that the Polynesians originated from Hagoth’s immigrant ships that traveled from east to the west into the Pacific Ocean from the Americas. However, despite such comments from these leaders, John L. Sorenson, in his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, p269, states “It remains impossible to demonstrate any clearcut connection between the two areas. Those who choose to believe Hagoth reached Polynesia must rely mainly on faith rather than on reliable evidence. The Book of Mormon itself, of course, says only that the man and his mates disappeared from the knowledge of the people in Zarahemla. For all they knew he might have died a ripe old age on the west Mexican coast without a suitable vessel in which to make the return voyage.”
    This illustrates one of the primary problems with theorists regarding their Land of Promise models—they build into their thinking and writing information not found or suggested in the scriptural record in order to justify and defend their models. As an example, there is no mention or even a hint of a suggestion that Hagoth went anywhere in his ships, or that he was lost at sea, or that the people in Zarahemla even knew about him, for he built his ships on the land between Bountiful and Desolation near the narrow neck of land (Alma 63:5) far from Zarahemla.
    However, that does not keep Sorenson, like most theorists, from building up a story that suits their narrative despite having no scriptural references to support it. In this case, the idea that Hagoth would be stranded somewhere and not have a “suitable vessel” to return home is, itself, ludicrous since Hagoth was a shipwright, talented enough to build exceedingly large ships—that is, he built ships for a living. Surely he could have built some type of vessel to return home in if he had become stranded somewhere; however, that is not the case since we know of no voyage Hagoth took, that he was lost at sea, or shipwrecked somewhere. The last entry of him in the record is “And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships” (Alma 63:7).
    Similarly, Rod Meldrum, of the Heartland theory, weighed into this type of deception, stating: “Some have claimed, incorrectly, that there is a scriptural requirement for a west coast landing.  However, nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it state that they sailed east in their ship or that they landed on the west coast of the promised land. This assumption is unfortunately based on a false report that Joseph Smith claimed that Lehi “…landed on the continent of South America in Chile, thirty degrees South Latitude” and has been thoroughly refuted by Church scholars” (Meldrum, “Lehi’s Voyage Demonstrated: Phoenicia Expedition,” June 3, 2018).
    Again, the problem with theorists is that they either give wrong information accidentally or deliberately. In this case, Meldrum made two important errors:
1. The assumption is based on Frederick G. Williams’ written message of a course that Lehi “sailed in a southeast direction, and landed on the continent of South America, in Chili, thirty degrees south latitude” (LDS Archive, Ms d 3408 fd 4). However, Williams never claimed it was a revelation from Joseph Smith, nor did Joseph Smith make any such claim—others later did, such as Parley P. Pratt in 1855 (Key to the Science of Theology, Liverpool, pp10-11).

In addition, Franklin D. Richards (left) also published this statement (Compendium of the Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, 1857, Liverpool, revised 1882), as part of the Lehi's Travels statement, attributing the quote to a "Revelation to Joseph the Seer," offering no facts to substantiate the claim. However, Williams claim to this knowledge was that he received it from an Angel who visited the Kirtland Temple dedication and sat between himself and Joseph Smith, Sr., a fact that others in the session publicly acknowledged during the meeting.
    It should also be noted that the idea of a west coast landing comes not from this source, but from the scriptural record and Mormon’s statement in his insertion that the Lamanites “were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathers' first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore” (Alma 22:28, emphasis added). This provides us with a location of their first landing, the first land of inheritance, which was on the west coast along the seashore.
2. What was refuted was that William’s written note was the recording of a revelation from Joseph Smith—not the course listed. That is, the fact of it being a revelation from Joseph was refuted by later Church leaders, such as B. H. Roberts, not the course Williams’ wrote down. Meldrum’s carefully worded comment makes it sound like the entire idea of traveling southeast and landing in Chile was refuted—that was not the case. The refuting was strictly of it being a revelation, which Meldrum deliberately does not clarify, making it sound like the entire idea was refuted, which again was not the case.
    It becomes obviously apparent, when studying the facts behind the many assertions that theorists make, to see that in many cases their claims are ill-founded at best, and often downright inaccurate, and at worse outright fabrications. Another example, of a definitive, but inaccurate statement is shown in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, pp268-269, in which John L. Sorenson states that “the ‘ship’ of Hagoth if it was like craft known later on the Pacific coast, was either a very large dugout canoe with built-up sides or a log raft with sails. Whatever its form, it would hardly have been a complex planked vessel at all resembling European ships.”
    First of all, there is no way to make such a claim—no one knows what kind of ships Hagoth built, or what kinds of ships were known to the Nephites who were involved in “shipping and their building of ships” (Helaman 3:14). In fact, we have a very good example in the scriptural record of the size of such ships when it is stated: “the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings. And as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping” (Helaman 3:9-10).

How big would a dugout canoe have to be or a log raft with a sail have to be to transport timber to the Land Northward profitably?

Now, for shipping of timber to be of any value, and especially cost effective, and the extensive effort to cut, dress, load and transport timber by ship, the vessel would have to be quite large and capable of tonnage displacement in order to carry enough wood for the effort to be worthwhile. You don’t build things with a few timbers that could be carried in a dugout canoe, even a very large one. Thus, when it states that Hagoth “built an exceedingly large ship” (Alma 63:5), we need to consider that such a ship would have had to have been of some size to make shipping timber profitable and worth the massive effort.
    Thus, the idea that the Nephites used large canoes with built-up sides has no relationship to the scriptural record and Mormon’s statement about this endeavor—which must have been important enough for him to mention it at all.
(See the net post, “Was Polynesia Settled from South America? – Part II,” for more information regarding the settling of Polynesia)