In what will hopefully become a recurring feature on the FAIR blog, we present a list of issues that could come up as you teach or participate in your ward’s Gospel Doctrine class. Each issue is linked to an examination and response by FAIR.
This week: Lesson 27, “They Must Needs Be Chastened and Tried, Even as Abraham” (D&C 101; 103; 105).
Subjects covered: Missouri persecutions, Zion’s Camp, the building up of Zion and her stakes.
Potential issues:
- Location of Zion
- Missouri belongs to the Mormons
- Independence temple to be built “in this generation”
- Zion to be redeemed by September 1836
- Cursing of enemies (D&C 103:24–25)
- Zelph (took place during Zion’s Camp)
If you can think of any other issues from this week’s lesson, please comment below so we can add more links.
PLEASE NOTE: This information is a preparatory resource for gospel doctrine teachers to help them formulate answers to questions that might arise during their class. It is not in any way a substitution for the Gospel Doctrine manual, nor should instructors make these topics the focus of class instruction. This information is provided with the understanding that it is an additional resource only.
This is a great idea. I looked through the issues presented and am thrilled with this resource. Many thanks!
Been exalted, the gospel has been preached and Gods people have been built up. About to do daystar in Texas, stay tuned.
Are you actually recommending a discussion of Zelph? Interesting. For some who support the limited-geographical Meso-America BOM lands theory, Zelph may seem problematic. How about an accurate, pre-spin look at the events of Zion’s Camp?
larry,
If you will follow the above link to Zelph you will see that the article was written to create as much doubt about the story of Zelph as possible. What cannot be obfuscated, however, is the Prophet’s letter to his wife the day following the Zelph incident:
Larry & Theodore:
There is some question as to exactly what what said on the mound that day—the recollections of those who were there conflict somewhat.
It’s clear from Joseph’s letter that he believed that the Midwestern American plains were the lands inhabited by the Nephites. The question is whether he and other contemporary Latter-day Saints assumed that was the case, or if Joseph actually received that understanding through revelation.
There is absolutely zero evidence that the latter is the case, unless one assumes the position of an inerrantist and believes that everything Joseph said, wrote, or believed was received by revelation.
Recommended reading:
Mike,
The fact that all the elements of the story are not included in every account is not evidence that Joseph Smith did not have a revelation about Zelph any more than the fact that all of the accounts of the First Vision are not identical is evidence that that Joseph did not see the Father and the Son. If you have any question as to whether the article is biased you just have to look at that beautiful ancient map of Mesoamerica in the upper right-hand corner of the article.
I won’t do a complete analysis of the article but just one example to demonstrate what I’m saying. In the bottom row of the chart where the heading is “Joseph Smith Vision?” it leaves Heber C. Kimball as blank. However, in HCK’s journal he wrote, “Brother Joseph had inquired of the Lord, and it was made known in a VISION” (emphasis added) Heber C. Kimball’s testimony that is was a vision totally ignored. The article states that “Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph.” If the article was fair and balanced why didn’t it include Joseph’s letter to his wife the following day which was a reflection of his experiences the day before, even if he didn’t mention Zelph by name.
Cowboy and I disagree on many things, but I completely agree with what he wrote on Mormon Matters – Unconventional Book of Mormon Geography Theories, Apr 25th, 2009 at 12:35 pm :
If you try and discredit Joseph Smith on one of his visions to support a pet geographical theory, it undermines and discredits the Prophet in everything else.
Theodore
Personally, I think if the “Zelph” account were a solid and important revelation, we would see something in the canon on it. As it stands, we have second and third hand recollections at best. To use it as evidence for a North American location for the Book of Mormon is a pretty shaky foundation, and further ignores the actual text of the Book of Mormon itself, which frankly doesn’t appear to support that location.
Hi all!
Just to clarify some things:
1. I believe there WAS a Zelph. Even though the HC is not infallible, I do believe that is is authentic and, in this case accurate. I take the position that Zelph was a Lamanite who lived in the declining days of the Nephite civilisation–and Joseph Smith was commenting on his bones.
2. So, assuming #1, we do not know quite what is meant that he was killed “during the last great struggle….” Is the Mormon Hill Cumorah (as opposed to the NY one) located in Missouri? Or in Illinois (Charles Mound)? Or was it more likely that he died in battle during the era of the death of the Nephite civilisation, and his body was moved to its burial place–to be discovered by Elder Riggs?
3. Assuming that Zelph was a chief who died in battle, it is by no means improbable that he was moved to a pre-planned tomb some distance from where he died. Lincoln was moved from Washington, DC to Springfield, IL, and Kennedy was moved from Dallas, TX to Arlington, VA. Though the latter two were assassinated and not killed in battle, I think this is enough of a precedent.
Given all of this, I still fail to see the relevance of those bones to any Book of Mormon geography–especially a North American one.
BHodges,
On the contrary: to have to discredit the Prophet in order to support the Mesoamerica theory says more about the theory than it does about the Prophet. The supporters of the Mesoamerica theory use a double standard when attacking evidence against their theory compared to providing evidence in support of their theory. For example, in order to explain why the early Brethren referred to the hill in Palmyra as Cumorah they claim that Joseph Smith misunderstood the simple passage in Mormon 6:6. This not only is an insult to his intelligence but they provide absolutely no evidence to support the assertion. They just think it must be so because it’s the only explanation that fits the theory and expect everyone to believe it. On the other hand the many pieces of documentary evidence to support the position that it was Moroni who told Joseph Smith the name of the hill was Cumorah are attacked with all of the energy of a defense lawyer trying to throw out all of the evidence.
Also on the contrary, the text of the Book of Mormon does not support the Mesoamerica theory at all. All of the text of the Book of Mormon supports a Nephite/Lamanite civilization from Costa Rica to the Hill Cumorah in New York. The foundation of the Mesoamerica theory is based upon how far a herd of fat hogs can walk through the mountains in one day on the way to market (Ancient American Setting… p 8), instead of how fast Alma’s people could travel, when fleeing for their lives (probably on a vast plain), with the help of the Lord! (Mosiah 23, 24)
Theodore
Hi Steven,
I’m sorry but I don’t follow your reasoning. Why do you think that Zelph must have died near Cumorah, and that the Plains of Illinois would have no relevance to a North American Book of Mormon geography?
Theodore
I, like Steven, believe that Zelph was a real person and that Joseph Smith recognized him as part of the BofM history. However, any interpretation of the incident is colored by our starting assumption. If we assume that the BofM took place in both North and South America as did Joseph Fielding Smith, then we, as did he, interrpret this as proof of our assumption. He even went so far as to ignore Joseph Smith’s correction in the doumentary history of the church and called him a Nephite general even though Joseph Smith corrected the entry to read Lamanite general.
If, however, we assume a Mesoamerican location for the central events in the BofM, then terms like Plains of the Nephites take on a different significance. In Helaman, we are told that many Nephites migrated to the North. The term is not found in the text and might therefore have been used by him to indicate an area somewhat removed from the central area. At the time of this incident JS had not read any of Stephen’s writings and had only begun to formulate his concept of the location for the central parts of the culture.
As has been pointed out by many others, the text supports a more southern location for the center but does not rule out the possibility of both Nephites and Lamanites in the plains of Illinois and Misouri.
Larry P
This is all interesting but let’s face facts. Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph. Even if he had an opinion on this, which he likely did, we must bear in mind the counsel of the First Presidency (Presidents Hinckley, Monson and Faust):
“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.”
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine
Hi Larry,
I’m glad to see you are gradually moving north and east, just like the Nephites. 😉
My reading of the text supports a landing near the southern tip of this continent, the original city of Nephi in Mesoamerica, and Zarahemla in Louisiana with the river Sidon as the Mississippi. I find that it all fits quite nicely with the text can find nothing in the text against it.
Theodore
Theodore,
Earlier you claimed:
But then you come up with idea that Zarahemla is in Lousiana, which directly contradicts several statements from the Nauvoo period that Zarahemla and the Book of Mormon lands were in Central America. For example:
Please be careful about accusing others of supporting “a pet geographical theory,” when you yourself have done the same or worse.
Mike,
On August 11, 1842 Joseph had gone into hiding from his enemies and was in seclusion for the remainder of the year. He had turned most of his responsibilities over to others (see Ivan J. Barrett, Joseph Smith and the Restoration, page 533). During this time the Prophet included several things in his journal that he did write, but in the two weeks prior to October 1st there is no mention of The Times and Seasons article and no mention that he was ever at the office of The Times and Seasons. In fact Joseph states clearly that he was at home all day on September 29, 30, and October 1st. Emma was very sick at this time and the Prophet was caring for her. There is no indication or evidence that he had even seen this article before it was published. If Joseph Smith had approved of this speculation there surely would have been further mention of it somewhere, but there is not (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:164-166).
Yes, I do support a “pet theory” but not at the expense of discrediting the Prophet.
Theodore
Theodore,
So it appears that you, too, judge and interpret which pieces of evidence to give credence to, and which should be considered non-authoritative. In that sense there is no difference between your approach and that of others who have commented here.
The only difference is that we’re not accusing you of “discrediting the prophet.” We just judge some of his statements to be revealed and others to be his opinion, and our judgment is different than yours.
You’re certainly welcome to believe the Book of Mormon took place anywhere you wish. But please don’t lower yourself to level of accusing people who disagree with you of evil-speaking of the Lord’s anointed or apostasy or what-not, because that’s exactly what you’re doing, and it will not be tolerated here.
Mike, you said:
I don’t consider that my pointing out that some arguments are a discredit to the Prophet is accusing any one of “evil-speaking of the Lord’s anointed or apostasy or what-not.” I’m sorry that it appears that way to you, Mike. I will try and be more considerate of your sensitivities in the future.
Theodore
Theodore,
Please don’t patronize me. You didn’t write “some arguments are a discredit to the Prophet.” You specifically wrote three times that believing in a Mesoamerican geography “discredits the Prophet,” which is a completely different and much more serious charge.
You are free to believe that everything Joseph said or wrote or was attributed to him about Book of Mormon geography was authentic and revealed, but don’t accuse others who disagree with you of downplaying Joseph’s prophetic authority.
Disagreements are welcome here. Charges of unfaithfulness — including coy ones — are not.
I am persuaded that a localized Mesoamerican setting is the one that best preserves the plausibility of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document.
Therefore, “Zelph” presents a real problem to me. The accounts of Joseph’s contemporaries, though they vary somewhat (as would be expected) do support each other with respect to numerous details, including the proper names Zelph and Onandagus.
So if the bones the Zion’s Camp members found weren’t really those of a “Zelph,” then how do we avoid the conclusion that Joseph made up a fanciful story on the spot and (apparently*) presenting them to his companions as literal truth? And if Joseph was given to making up fanciful stories, does that increase or diminish his overall credibility?
*I say “apparently” because there’s always the possibility that Joseph was pulling his companions’ leg, and they mistakenly took him seriously.
Mike,
If that is the way it came across it was not my intent, and again I apologize. Please allow me to rephrase my statement to more properly reflect what I meant: The argument that Joseph Smith made up the story of Zelph from his own imagination discredits the Prophet.
Theodore
Thomas,
I think that the tenor of the handwritten letter to his wife the next day rules out the possibility that it was a joke.
Theodore
If that is what you meant, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, even though I strenuously disagree with you.
Joseph Smith was a prophet, but he was also a man. He didn’t walk around with a “spiritual earpiece”, constantly being told by God what to say. Revelation requires asking, desiring, and effort, as evidenced by the circumstances behind the canonized revelations in Doctrine and Covenants. There’s no evidence that Joseph sought for a Zelph revelation. I have no doubt that he believed what he said about Zelph, but there’s no evidence that the information came from anything other than his assumptions about the location of the Book of Mormon.
Believing this doesn’t discredit the Prophet in any way. It makes him a flesh-and-blood individual, rather than an automaton.
Mike,
Except that Heber Kimball’s journal states:
“Brother Joseph had inquired of the Lord, and it was made known in a vision.” (Times and Seasons. vol. 6, p.788.)
Theodore
Excellent cite, Theodore.
Looking at T&S 6:788 (full quote below), I see nothing in it that would require a Nephite civilization in the American midwest. Nephites aren’t even mentioned, and neither is the timing of event. Did Zelph die contemporaneous to Moroni, or hundreds of years later? And what is meant by “Lamanite” anyway? (Joseph seems to use the word to describe all Native Americans.) Did Joseph correctly interpret the vision? And if it authoritatively established Book of Mormon geography, why wasn’t it canonized like D&C 116, a separate revelation that does establish scriptural geography?
Assuming the HCK’s diary entry correctly summarizes the event, I don’t see how this requires a North American BofM geography.
Mike,
By itself it doesn’t. But coupled with Joseph’s letter to his wife the next day, it does.
These are Joseph’s statements to his wife after receiving the vision.
Theodore
Mike,
I can understand Joseph speculating, based on his “assumptions” about Book of Mormon geography, that the skeleton Zion’s Camp found was a Lamanite — but where the heck does that elaborate backstory come from?
Speculating that the Fall River skeleton was that of a Viking is one thing. Going on to say his name was Thorkel Thorgeirsson, and that he was a scout sent out by the great chieftain Snorri Gudnason, and that he died by falling on his spear after his wife’s death, is something else. The one makes you a misinformed amateur anthropologist. The other makes you a fantasist.
So honestly, what do we do with Zelph?
Let’s assume for a moment that HCK’s journal is accurate, and the Joseph received a revelation, and the contents of the revelation are what was recorded. Notice in Joseph’s letter to Emma that there is a lot of stuff in there that wasn’t in the revelation—”the plains of the Nephites”, skulls and bones of dead Nephites, etc.
This sounds a lot to me like Joseph’s personal elaboration on his earlier revelation, based on what he believed the revelation said.
It’s common and natural for us to read the revelations in the light of our preexisting beliefs and assumptions. Even as receiver of the revelation, Joseph did the same.
We do nothing with him. The story is an interesting footnote that has no authority in determining doctrine or establishing the location of the lands described in the Book of Mormon.
Mike,
Joseph wrote:
Mike wrote:
“As proof of its divine authenticity.” Are you suggesting that the Prophet was misled by his revelation into thinking that those were Nephite bones?
Theodore
Not nearly. Only that God revealed something to Joseph, and Joseph read more into it than was there. That’s human nature.
Mike,
Do you have any evidence to support this supposition?
“We do nothing with him. The story is an interesting footnote that has no authority in determining doctrine….”
Yes and no. It *is* a data point that bears on how we should understand the particular doctrine of how God uses prophets — namely, that sometimes (assuming Zelph wasn’t really Zelph), they may just *make stuff up.* Since “we ought to obey God rather than men,” doesn’t that have implications for how we give heed to their statements?
Thank you, Thomas. I didn’t expect my statement that, “the argument that Joseph Smith made up the story of Zelph from his own imagination discredits the Prophet,” would be verified so quickly.
Theodore,
We’ve been examining the evidence. But all evidence cannot be simply taken at face value; it must be interpreted and weighed in light of other known facts.
When it comes to determining the geography of the Book of Mormon, the Zelph story is just one data point in a very large set. This set includes what the Book of Mormon itself says about its geography (to which we should give the greatest weight), statements (revealed and otherwise) by Joseph Smith, and external evidence (archeological, anthropological, and genetic).
Ultimately, the preponderance of the evidence, I believe, points to the Book of Mormon taking place in a limited geographical area about the size of the state of California. Matching the internal to the external evidence clearly leads to the conclusion that the cultural and technological history of the ancient inhabitants of what is now the Midwestern United States does not match the culture and technology described in the Book of Mormon. Of all the locations in the western hemisphere, Mesoamerica seems to fit the best, although that theory is not without its own challenges.
The Zelph story has to be placed into this larger puzzle. Considering all the other evidence, and comparing what Heber C. Kimball said was revealed to Joseph Smith with what Joseph later wrote to Emma, it seems to me that Joseph may have had a revelation about Zelph from which he extrapolated — not “made up”, as Thomas seems fixated on — a larger Book of Mormon geography. If so, his extrapolation was in error.
But Joseph’s possible error on that one point in no way negates his calling as a prophet, nor does it “disdain” the accepted, canonized revelations he received.
Ultimately, I don’t really care where the events in the Book of Mormon took place, because the message of the book vastly exceeds in value anything it might tell me about ancient American history. If you wish to believe Zarahemla was in Louisiana and that the Mississippi River was the River Sidon, more power to you. I just get a little bent out of shape when people get fanatical about Book of Mormon geography to the point to calling into the question the testimony of others who don’t agree with them.
I’ve honestly said as much as I care to on this topic. Please feel free to have the last word, if it will make you happy.
OK Mike, you have laid out your position quite clearly.
In my studies the preponderance of evidence came mostly from the text of the Book of Mormon itself and points clearly to the Nephite/Lamanite civilization beginning in Costa Rica and gradually migrating north and east until they covered most of the continent east of the Rocky Mountains. I believe that Mesoamerica was the site of the original City of Nephi but by about 200 BC the Lamanites had driven the Nephites as far north as the Rio Grande. King Mosiah the 1st led them across the plains of Texas to the Mississippi River. They migrated east from there to the Atlantic Ocean then up the coastal plain to a place where there is a “narrow neck of land” where the “sea divides the land,” and there is also a “narrow pass” through the Blue Ridge Mountains into the Central Plains. I do not think Joseph Smith was in error in his belief that there were Nephites on the plains of Illinois. The saga ends at Cumorah, only to begin again at the same place about 1600 years later.
I respect your right to believe what you wish, and respectfully disagree with you. I did not intend to call your testimony into question and apologize again that it seemed like I did.
All the best to you,
Theodore
Theodore:
I am pleased that you grant that the text of the Book of Mormon should be the ground for our opinions on Book of Mormon geography. Now it will be nice to see you flesh out your speculation with appropriate passages in the Book of Mormon that support your geography. Until or unless you do this, which you have not done, there is no reason to take seriously your opining on this matter. If your opinions flow mostly from came “mostly from the text of the Book of Mormon itself,” which is what you claim, then you should show exactly how you reached your conclusions. You should begin by showing from the Book of Mormon that it was at that place that Joseph Smith recovered the record he then dictated to his scribes. The way I read the Book of Mormon, an effort was made to get the plates away from the place where that terrible last recorded battle took place. Am I wrong about this?
Louis Midgley
Hello, Theodore!
There are three references to the “narrow pass” in the Book of Mormon (Alma 50:34; 52:9 and Mormon 3:5). In each case, the narrow pass is by Bountiful and Desolation. Bountiful and Desolation, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, are near the “narrow neck” [Alma 63:5; see also http://www.fairblog.org/2008/10/05/usingand-misusing-scholarship-and-revelation/%5D. Unfortunately, the Blue Ridge Mountains–not even the ones in Georgia–are nowhere near any isthmus, or narrow neck.
Unless, of course, you accept the peninsular Florida model for Book of Mormon geography–and 300-odd miles count as “close” to you! 😉
Louis,
The evidence from the text that I have to present is too much for this particular blog page, and I don’t know if anyone from FAIR would want to devote a page completely to the subject. However, for anyone who is interested they may download my thesis, “A North American Setting For The Book of Mormon,” at http://brandley.poulsenll.org/ It is a 24 Mb Word file so after you click for the download give it some time to complete.
The text of the Book of Mormon does not begin at Cumorah but rather ends there. Generally speaking, my thesis follows the narrative and leads, step by step to Cumorah.
At the opening of the Book of Moroni he states that he had finished the record of the people of Jared and had not planned to write anymore, but had wandered for some time and been hiding from Lamanites and had not yet perished. It would have been illogical for him to have taken the plates with him in his wanderings and hidings. What if he had been captured and killed by the Lamanites? It would have been more reasonable for him to leave them in the hiding place with all of the other records that he had searched among to find the record of Ether. He must have returned to the original hiding place, probably a cave in the Hill Cumorah, where his father appears to have moved all of the records when the Nephites began to be destroyed. It appears that Moroni finished his record there, sealed it and buried it in the hill.
What indicates to you that Moroni tried to move the plates away from Cumorah?
Theodore
Evidence that ancient people from Mesopotamia came to South America and built similar ziggurats for astronomical/religious purposes:
Maya
In Maya mythology, from the Popol Vuh, Part 1, Chapter 3, Huracan (“one-legged”) was a wind and storm god who caused the Great Flood (of resin) after the first humans (made of wood) angered the gods (by being unable to worship them). He supposedly lived in the windy mists above the floodwaters and spoke the word “earth” until land came up again from the seas.
Later, in Part 3, Chapter 3&4,
Four men & four women repopulate the Quiche world after the flood
all speaking the same language (but a confusing reference)
and gather together in the same location
where their speech is changed (affirmed several times)
after which they disperse throughout the world.
Like many others, this account does not present an “Ark”. A “Tower of Babel” depends upon the translation; some render the peoples arriving at a city, others, at a citadel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
“The Legend of Votan, who had built the first city that was the cradle of Mesoamerican civilization, was written down by Spanish chroniclers from oral Mayan traditions. The emblem of Votan, they recorded, was the serpent; ‘he was a descendant of the Guardians, of the race of Can’. ‘Guardians’ was the meaning of the Egyptian term Neteru (i.e., ‘gods’). Can, studies such as that by Zelia Nuttal (Papers of the Peabody Museum) have suggested was a variant of Canaan who was (according to the Bible) a member of the Hamitic peoples of Africa and a brother-nation of the Egyptians.”
– Zecharia Sitchin, When Time Began
“Ptah and the other gods were called, in Egyptian, Ntr – ‘Guardian, Watcher’.”
– Zecharia Sitchin, The Wars of Gods and Men
Hi Steven, thank you for your inquiry.
From the Alabama River to the north there are no river valley passes through the Blue Ridge Mountains for 700 miles. About fifty miles northwest of Washington D.C there is an unusual tectonic transect in the Blue Ridge Mountain Range that created a corridor through which the Potomac River flows to the sea. When Thomas Jefferson viewed this mountain gap from a high ridge in 1783 he wrote:
Mormon described a narrow pass which led from the sea into the land northward, which was the land of Desolation. This pass was near a place where there was a sea on the west and a sea on the east. Fifty miles from the Potomac River Corridor through the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Potomac flows into the Atlantic across the bay from the Delmarva Peninsula, that has a sea on the west, and a sea on the east.
Two years later, in a major war with the Lamanites, Moroni sent orders to Teancum, “that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side.” (Alma 52:9)
Over 400 years later the situation was somewhat reversed, as the Nephites controlled the land Desolation and the Lamanites controlled the land Bountiful.
This narrow pass marked the boundary between the Land Bountiful and the Land Desolation. It was a strategic place at that time, and it was in modern times as well. During the American Civil War this pass was on the boundary between the Confederate and the Union Forces. Control of the pass changed hands eight times during the course of the war.
Theodore
Steven,
In anticipation of your follow-up question I am providing some additional information on the “narrow neck of land.” There are only two references for the “narrow neck of land.”
Notice that there are no references for anything passing through the narrow neck of land. There are only things happening “by” it. The “narrow neck of land” is only mentioned as a significant landmark. Notice also, that Moroni describes this landmark as “the place where the sea divides the land,” not where the land divides the sea.
On the eastern seaboard, Chesapeake Bay “divides the land” for 170 miles. At the head of the bay is a 20 mile wide narrow neck of land that separates it from Delaware Bay on the east. This narrow neck of land is the Delmarva Peninsula, shared by the three states of Maryland, Delaware and Virginia. The Susquehanna River flows from around the north end of the Blue Ridge Mountains and into Chesapeake Bay at the top of the narrow neck of land. Hagoth launched his ships into the west sea of this narrow neck of land.
Theodore,
It would be going too far to say that Joseph Smith inventing the Zelph details out of whole cloth necessarily “discredits” him. It does, of course, discredit a certain popular concept of prophetic infallibility.
Thomas,
If Joseph Smith invented the story of Zelph out of whole cloth, with all of the details of names and positions etc., so that his followers believed it came from a vision, it would discredit both him and his prophetic calling. It makes a deceiver out of him and brings into question all of his revelations.
Theodore
Thomas,
This is not a matter of human fallibility. Joseph didn’t say, I think these must be Nephite bones.” He convinced his followers that he had a vision and that this was the information he received by revelation. If he is a deceiver it destroys his credibility as a prophet. This is not an option for the Latter-day Saints.
Thomas,
After receiving a vision detailing the identity of the bones they found, Joseph Smith wrote to his wife that the bones were Nephite bones.
In my opinion there are three options and three possible conclusions with the vision of Zelph:
A. Joseph made it up and convinced his followers that it was a vision. Therefore, he is a deceiver and a false prophet.
B. Joseph received a vision but misinterpreted it. Therefore, he is an unreliable prophet.
C. Joseph received a vision and correctly interpreted it. Therefore, Joseph is a true and reliable prophet, and the Mesoamerica theory is invalid.
Theodore
Theodore,
If you approach Zelph from the perspective of a fundamentalist/inerrantist, then those are the options.
But I don’t, so they aren’t.
Theodore says:
What a crock!
Theodore, your opinion is wrong! 😉
Even assuming that Zelph’s bones are genuine–which I do–unqualifiedly–how does that invalidate any Mesoamerican model?
The answer is that it doesn’t–unless you have proof that the Nephites couldn’t have been in Mesoamerica at all–and that the Mesoamerican model precludes ANY Nephite influence stretching to Anglo North America.
By the by Theodore, Zelph was a white Lamanite [HC 2:79]; NOT a Nephite. There IS a difference between them!
One thing more, Theodore:
Both Bountiful and Desolation are near both the narrow neck and the narrow pass.
And south of the narrow neck is the Land Southward–and the major cities of the Nephites.
The verses you cite make that clear.
Mike,
I don’t expect the prophet to be perfect. However, I would expect that when he received a vision from the Lord concerning the detailed identity of a man’s bones he would not misinterpret the individual’s ethnicity. Especially when he presented the Nephite bones “as a proof of [the] divine authenticity” of the Book of Mormon. If he messed up on that simple but important fact from this vision how can we consider him reliable on his other revelations?
Steven,
Even assuming that Zelph’s bones are genuine–which I do–unqualifiedly–how does that invalidate any Mesoamerican model?
The Prophet not only referred to the bones as being Nephite but identified the area as the plains of the Nephites. The Mesoamerica theory may not prohibit a wandering Nephite from straying that far north but it does confine the events recorded in the Book of Mormon to the area of Mesoamerica. Joseph Smith presented the Nephite bones in Illinois as “as a proof of [the] divine authenticity” of the Book of Mormon. This certainly does not prohibit some of the Book of Mormon events from occurring in Mesoamerica, but it prohibits confining all of the events to that limited area.
The curse of the dark skin of the Lamanites was removed from those who joined the Church and they became white (3Nephi 2:12-15).
Theodore
Steven,
Yes. As you have pointed out the border between the Land of Bountiful and Desolation was “near” both the narrow neck and the “narrow pass.” The border was not “in” the peninsula, it was near it. The peninsula was simply a landmark that Mormon used to inform us of the location of the border between these two lands.
Theodore
Steven,
White Lamanites were Nephites.
“B. Joseph received a vision but misinterpreted it. Therefore, he is an unreliable prophet.”
That depends, I suppose, on what you were relying on Joseph for.
If you were relying on him to be the kind of divine mouthpiece whose every word could be trusted to be the word of Deity, than yes, Joseph was unreliable for that purpose. It probably wouldn’t have been wise to rely on him as a banker or real estate broker, either.
However, his unreliability in some capacities doesn’t necessarily speak to his unreliability in other areas.
Thomas,
However, in this instance, concerning his understanding of a vision, we are trusting him as revelator.
Theodore,
Question: Is Joseph Smith an “unrelible prophet” because there aren’t men living on the moon who are dressed like Quakers?
Mike,
You are digging really deep on this one. This defaming hearsay 40 years after the fact would not pass even the most liberal rules of scholarship. Besides, we are not speaking about personal opinions (people living on the moon was a common misconception in those days), we are speaking about his reliability in interpreting visions. Joseph Smith was a very reliable prophet.
Theodore,
So you accept — at least in principle — the idea that, outside of the accepted canon of scripture, there is question and debate about the authenticity, reliability, and interpretation of things Joseph said (or may have said) to others?
Mike,
Of course I accept the principle of the question of reliability of what he may have said or not said. The TS article about Mesoamerica that you cited as being from Joseph is a perfect example. We have just had good debate as to whether Joseph had a vision of Zelph or whether he made it up. The evidence supports that he had a vision. The question now at hand is whether he was reliable in interpreting that vision.
My prior assertion was that Joseph Smith is a very reliable prophet. In support of that I point to the fact that the anti-Mormons have been trying to prove him a false or unreliable prophet for 180 years and have not been able to do so. More recently, FAIR has done an excellent job of refuting those allegations, and the FAIR website library contains a wealth of evidence that Joseph Smith is a true and reliable prophet. Therefore I find no evidence that he has ever been unreliable in his interpretation of visions or revelations, so there is no reason to suspect that he misinterpreted the vision of Zelph.
Theodore
Theodore,
Considering that the purported vision has not been submitted to the membership of the Church for a sustaining vote, or through any other means added to the canon, I don’t accept it as binding in determining faith or doctrine. Joseph himself didn’t see fit to even make an discuss it after it occurred, and the only records we have of a supposed vision come from personal diaries, not official Church records.
My point is that we do not accept everything Joseph said on the same level. The canonized revelations are superior in authority to everything, then official declarations from Church leaders. Second- and third-hand personal accounts, even if they are accurate, do not determine doctrine.
If you personally wish to believe this single episode is wholly reliable and firmly establishes Book of Mormon geography in North America, you are perfectly in your right to do so. But the Zelph episode does not represent accepted, binding doctrine by the Church, and there remain serious and substantial questions in the minds of many as to what exactly Joseph experienced and said.
Questioning the Zelph episode does not equate to questioning Joseph’s reliability as a prophet.
Joseph F. Smith’s comments on “gospel hobbies” have some applicability here.
Mike,
I have never suggested that the Zelph vision or Joseph’s interpretation of it was in any way binding on the Church. If it was we would not be having this debate. My argument is that the evidence supports it as a vision and that Joseph reliably interpreted it.
If you do not believe it that is certainly your choice. We respectfully agree to disagree.
Theodore
Theodore,
Then it seems that that the only thing we agree on is that we disagree about the authenticity, reliability, and interpretation of the Zelph incident.
Agreed.
Best regards my brother,
Theodore
“Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.”
http://josephtheseer.byu.edu/pubRevJList1830.php
Even Joseph presented the identity of Zelph as having been “revealed,” it would not be inconsistent with Joseph’s teaching of how prophetic revelation operates.
Exactly. And the main issue we have been debating is Joseph’s reliability in discerning the difference. As I previously pointed out, his track record is excellent and reliable.
Theodore
Great idea to post this the week before.
Theodore asks:
Because the Nephite and Lamanite armies MOVED–over possibly thousands of miles, and certainly over three or four decades. Mormon informs us that, starting about AD 350, the great Nephite retreat began–toward the Land Northward [See Mormon 2:16-29].
After the Nephites leave the Land Northward, we simply are not told where they went–or where Zelph fits in in the saga of the Nephites’ last days.
Steven,
The Land Northward was the Land of Desolation (Alma 22:31) where the Jaredites were destroyed. The final battle of the Jaredites was at Cumorah (Ether 15:11) so the Land Northward includes Cumorah where the final battle of the Nephites also occurred (see Mormon 6:4). The Nephites had settled in Desolation, or the Land Northward, for 400 years before the final wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites (Helaman 3) and would have spread across much, if not all of it, in that time. As you have mentioned these final battles lasted at least ten years (see Mormon 4:16-18; 6:5) and would have covered considerable territory. So when Joseph Smith referred to western Illinois as the “Plains of the Nephites,” and that Zelph was killed “during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites”(HC 2:79-80) it all fits very nicely with the text of the Book of Mormon.
Theodore
I was reading Reviews of DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography Prophecy and Scripture, and became very irritated at the author’s dishonest evaluation of this piece of evidence supporting a North American setting for the Book of Mormon. Meldrum tried to show that North America, especially the United States, is the land of freedom, the choice and promised land that the Book of Mormon talks about. The FAIR author tries to dispute it by trying to change the definition of liberty.
The author asks, “What kind of liberty did the Book of Mormon have in mind for the promised land?” The author explains that Mosiah wanted to set up judges so he wouldn’t have to be responsible for the people’s spirituality. “…it was the freedom to be responsible for one’s own acts…” He goes on to say, “The Book of Mormon doesn’t even seem to think that having a democracy is necessary for this freedom. Alma agreed with Mosiah who said it would be good that we ‘should always have kings to rule over’ us if certain conditions of righteousness were met. The Book of Mormon does not talk of political liberty as is embodied in the United States, but of moral liberty—the ability to make one’s own choices and be responsible to God for those choices.”
Either the author is writing from memory and has a really bad one, or he is LYING! What is the real story? I will show how the author has twisted the scriputres to support his own agenda (MesoAmerican theory).
Mosiah 29:
5 Behold, O ye my people, or my brethren, for I esteem you as such, I desire that ye should consider the cause which ye are called to consider—for ye are desirous to have a king.
6 Now I declare unto you that he to whom the kingdom doth rightly belong has declined, and will not take upon him the kingdom.
7 And now if there should be another appointed in his stead, behold I fear there would rise contentions among you…
10 And now let us be wise and look forward to these things, and do that which will make for the peace of this people.
11 Therefore I will be your king the remainder of my days; nevertheless, let us appoint judges, to judge this people according to our law; and we will newly arrange the affairs of this people, for we will appoint wise men to be judges, that will judge this people according to the commandments of God.
12 Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.
13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.
16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.
17 For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!
25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
So, the PEOPLE wanted a king and Mosiah advised against it! Not only that, he said, “…choose you by the voice of this people…”, and “…therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.” Doesn’t that sound like DEMOCRACY?
There are many more passages that emphasize the importance of political liberty, not just moral liberty. If the people use their moral liberty righteously, they will have political liberty. This was a promise given to Lehi and his posterity.
2 Nephi 1:
5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a LAND OF PROMISE, a land which is CHOICE ABOVE ALL OTHER LANDS; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be A LAND OF LIBERTY unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of OTHER NATIONS; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may POSSESS THIS LAND unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will TAKE AWAY from them the LANDS of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.
Alma 46:
10 Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous’ sake.
11 And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalickiah.
12 And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.
13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—
14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.
15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.
16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the FREEDOM OF THE LAND might be favored.
17 And it came to pass that when he had poured out his soul to God, he named all the land which was south of the land Desolation, yea, and in fine, all the land, both on the north and on the south—A CHOSEN LAND, AND THE LAND OF LIBERTY.
18 And he said: Surely God shall not suffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed, until we bring it upon us by our own transgressions.
Ether 8:
22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.
25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to OVERTHROW THE FREEDOM OF ALL LANDS, NATIONS, AND COUNTRIES; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.
Alma 48:
11 And Moroni was … a man whose soul did joy in the LIBERTY AND FREEDOM OF HIS COUNTRY, and his brethren from bondage and slavery;
Alma 59:
13 And it came to pass that Moroni was angry with the government, because of their indifference concerning the freedom of their country.
More references:
Alma 43:48-50
Alma 50:39
Alma 51:7-21
Alma 60:10-36
Alma 61:6
Alma 62:1-11
3 Nephi 2:12
Which country has been the Land of Freedom?
D&C 106:
1 It is my will that my servant Warren A. Cowdery should be appointed and ordained a presiding high priest over my church, in the land of Freedom and the regions round about;
D&C 98:
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
I apologize for the hit and run post, but I don’t have much time and wanted to share a few quotes.
The History of the Church states “…these two American continents [North and South]. These continents are a promised land.” B.H. Roberts, History of the Church pg 552 footnote
Joseph Smith stated “…speaking of the Land of Zion, It consists of all N[orth] & S[outh] America but that any place where the Saints gather is Zion which every righteous man will build up for a place of safety for his children…The redemption of Zion is the redemption of all N[orth] & S[outh] America.” Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, edited by Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Smith’s July 19, 1840 Discourse,” Brigham Young University Studies 19:3 (Spring 1979): 392.
“This land, North and South America, is the land of Zion; it is a choice land—the land that was given by promise from old father Jacob to his grandson and his descendants, the land on which the Zion of God should be established in the latter days.” “The Signs of the Coming of the Son of Man, Etc.,” Journal of Discourses, reported by David W. Evans 12 January 1873, Vol. 15 (London: Latter-Day Saint’s Book Depot, 1873), 279.
. “This is our need today—to plant the standard of liberty among our people throughout the Americas… the struggle for liberty is a continuing one—it is with us in a very real sense today right here on this choice land of the Americas.” Conference Report (October 1962): 14–15; “To the peoples who should inhabit this blessed land of the Americas, the Western Hemisphere, an ancient prophet uttered this significant promise and solemn warning”: Conference Report, October 1944, Third Day—Morning Meeting, p.128
. Milton R. Hunter, “This is one of the most important days of my life, and in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . We came in full view of the valley of the Great Salt Lake; the land of promise, held in reserve by God, as a resting place for his Saints.” Conference Report, April 1947, Second Day—Morning Meeting, p.67
Orson Pratt: “And the Lord gave unto them the whole continent, for a land of promise…”Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records (Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840); cited in David J. Whittaker, The Essential Orson Pratt (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), 11
Orson Pratt: “We are not in possession of our land of promise particularly, only as we obtain it by a renewed promise; but we are inheriting a land that was given to the remnant of Joseph, and God has said that we must be remembered with them in the possession of this land.” “The Joy and Happiness, Etc.,” Journal of Discourses, reported by David W. Evans 1 November 1868, Vol. 12 (London: Latter-Day Saint’s Book Depot, 1869), 322.
Elder George F. Richards, “The land of North and South America is a very much favored portion of our Father’s footstool, and he has declared with his own mouth that it is a land of promise-a chosen land-above all other lands.” Conference Report, October 1922, Afternoon meeting p.80
Elder George F. Richards, “Afterwards, Mulek, with a colony from Jerusalem came to this country. These colonies were located in the southern part of North America, in Central America, and in the northern part of South America. And all this land, as well as that into which they migrated to the north and to the south was designated by the Lord as the land of promise” Conference Report, October 1922, Afternoon Session, p.81
Elder Sylvester Q. Cannon, “This western hemisphere is a land of great promise.” Conference Report, October 1939, Afternoon Meeting, p.123
Melvin J. Ballard: “…I turn the key, unlock, and open the door for the preaching of the Gospel in all these South American nations…that thy name may be honored and glorified in this part of the land of Zion.” Melvin J. Ballard: Crusader for Righteousness (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1966), 81.
Theodore Tuttle: “South America…land choice above all other lands. This land is included in the Book of Mormon declaration. It does not refer to North America alone; when the prophets were speaking they included both South America and North America as the land of promise.” “South America—Land of Promise,” address to BYU student body (14 April 1964); cited in BYU Speeches of the Year, 1964 (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1964), 3.
Ted E. Brewerton: “Three groups left the land of Jerusalem and crossed the oceans…and arrived in the promised land, the Americas.” “The Book of Mormon: A Sacred Ancient Record,” Ensign (November 1995): 30.
1 Nephi 18:25 states
“And it came to pass that 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.”
So the land of promise has an abundance of ore, gold, silver and copper, according to this scripture. John Lund writes ““Four separate mining areas possessing gold, silver and copper are required in order to qualify as the lands of the primary events in The Book of Mormon. Where are those criteria met? The answer is Mesoamerica, Southwestern United States, the Northern Rockies, and Western Canada. However, there is no single place east of the Mississippi River, including all twenty-six states, where one can find gold, silver, and copper together in one locale in abundance, much less four separate locations. This single fact alone is a nail in the coffin of Great Lakes advocates.”John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?, (The Communication Company 2007), pg 128
However, this abundance can be found in Mesoamerica.
A “land of promise” can be different places to different people, because it is land that the Lord has covenanted to his people To the Israelites, it was Israel, to Enos and his people, it was the land of Cainan. It is possible that it will be promised for “a little season”D/C 51:16-17 or it can be a heavenly promised land we all wish to obtain Alma 37:45. It is not a definite term that is used for places of earth, but has a spiritual meaning of what God covenants to give you.
onika said:
Several things, Onika. First, the author of the review you are reading is correct. The Book of Mormon always (not sometimes, but always) presents the concept of “freedom” relative to the ability of God’s people to make correct choices in whatever government they may find themselves.
I know that many people look at the Book of Mormon and say (in effect), “See they are talking about the land of liberty and we take liberty seriously, so it must be America.” Such thinking, however, is an exercise in reading our present understandings back into the text–there is no evidence that our American government is what was being described as “the best” in the Book of Mormon.
God had a hand in creating the American government; this I firmly believe. But that does not mean that our American government is the “one true government on the face of the earth.” There are many governments set up with God’s help in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. And none of those governments is mirrored by the US government. God has a hand in setting up any government where the truth of the gospel can be shared and can flourish–ancient or modern.
In parting, let me point out two other things. First, it is inappropriate to accuse someone of lying unless you have suddenly gained the ability to read minds. Someone can be mistaken or they can lie; the difference is intent. If someone intends to deceive then they are lying. If you have evidence of intent to deceive, please provide it. Otherwise, please don’t make assertions that you cannot support.
Second, FAIR does not support a Mesoamerican theory of the Book of Mormon. There are many theories relative to Book of Mormon geography, and several of those theories involve Mesoamerica. If you really read the reviews you seek to criticize, they very plainly state that FAIR does not support any particular theory of geography.
-Allen
Some noted differences between the liberal democracy of the United States and the political system of the Nephites includes.
The Nephite system has:
* no separation of Church and state (at least initially)
* no separation of powers into executive and judiciary (the chief judge is both a judge in “court” cases, and makes laws)
* no existence of a legislative branch
* a hereditary component in which chief judgeship passes from father to son with few variations
* no term limits and no re-election; judges are elected for life and seem to only be deposed for gross malfeasance or via rebellion
* no separation of civil and military power (Alma the Younger, the first chief judge, leads the armies–this is later delegated to military specialists)
* broad, sweeping powers granted to military commanders in the field which include political orders, resettlement, etc.
* Nephite law forbade slavery, while the U.S. Constitution permitted it.
* “voice of the people” seems to be less a voting as it does a consensus system of tribal or family groups expressing support
* one chief judge can designate his own successor as life-long chief judge
Meldrum’s presentation relies on readers assuming the equivalence, but it unfortunately ignores a great deal of what has been learned about the Book of Mormon text.
These insights say nothing about the geography whatsoever.
It seems to me unfortunate in a world-wide Church to insist that the area being spoken of is ONLY the United States, when so many prophets and apostles have taught otherwise.
See many of their quotes here.
Meldrum’s logical chain of “chain maile,” as he calls it, requires this connection and many others. But, the chain’s links simply don’t hold.
FAIR lists all known geographical theories on the website.
Greg
Greg,
I feel a little left out that my geographical theory is left out of the FAIR list. 😉
A North American Setting For The Book of Mormon, 2008 http://brandley.poulsenll.org/
Theodore
Onika:
I would suggest that forcing an absolute interpretation on the “no kings” prophecy in Ether is untenable. You see, there isn’t one square millimetre of the Western Hemisphere that has NEVER been ruled by Kings. Not one.
Now, if you insist on an Anglo North American setting for the Book of Mormon because the USA never had a king (But see http://www.molossia.org/norton.html for a documented claim to the contrary.), the least you can do is avoid that which is based on fraudulent evidence (i.e., the Michigan relics, which was proven to be forgeries by Elder James Talmage [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_relics]), and conflicts with the text of the Book of Mormon itself.
A better setting, in my opinion, is the Florida peninsula [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%5D. It is “nearly surrounded by water” [Alma 22:32]; it has a “narrow neck” on the north, which can be traversed in a day and a half [Alma 22: 30-32; 63:5]; It has a northward-flowing river [Alma 22:27-29] with hills to the east [Alma 2:15-17; 43:35], and springs to the west [The Waters of Mormon–Mosiah 18:5-30]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocklawaha_River.
And–for you “one Cumorah” theorists–Florida is close enough to upstate New York for a retreating group of hundreds of thousands of people to travel over a period of decades. 😉
Steven,
If they could migrate from Florida to Cumorah in a decade or two, what would prevent them from migrating and settling there over a century or two, or three, or four? 😉
Allen,
I said, “Either the author is writing from memory and has a really bad one, or he is LYING! ” So, I did mention another possibility.
The reason I even mentioned lying is because the statement by the author, “The Book of Mormon doesn’t even seem to think that having a democracy is necessary for this freedom.” is so blatantly false ! This is what I’m upset about, not the promotion of one theory over another.
I know FAIR has claimed not to support any particular theory, but since individuals have their biases, it appears this author was a little overly enthusiastic about his bias.
More about this later.
Greg,
I assume that it is because no one has had the time to examine my geographical theory and enter it into the FAIR list. Here then are the entries that will fit into the matrix on the list:
Model Name: Brandley 2008
Date Proposed: 2008
Scope: CGT (Continental Geography Theory)
This theory does not fit into either the hemispheric or the limited geography theories. It covers the continent of North America from Costa Rica to New York.
Narrow Neck: Delmarva Peninsula
Land North: US area north and east of Blue Ridge Mountains and north of Delmarva Peninsula
Land South: US coastal plains from the Mississippi River to the Susquehanna River
(This does not include the Land of Nephi, for which there is no category in the matrix. The Land of Nephi ran from Costa Rica to the plains of Texas)
Cumorah: New York
River Sidon: Mississippi
Nephi’s Landing: Costa Rica
Religion: LDS
Type of Model: External
Theodore
I agree both North and South America are the land of promise because Columbus landed on the islands of the Carribean, so that must be part of the promised land, and the Book of Mormon says the promised land would be kept from the knowledge of other nations, so that would include both continents. (2 Nephi 1: 8) That doesn’t mean the story of the book of Mormon had to take place on both continents.
I think Theodore’s theory sounds the best. A clue to this is in this verse:
Alma 46:
17 And it came to pass that when he had poured out his soul to God, he named all the land which was south of the land Desolation, yea, and in fine, all the land, both on the north and on the south—A CHOSEN LAND, AND THE LAND OF LIBERTY.
If Desolation were in Central or South America then North America would be excluded as the chosen land of Liberty, and again D&C calls the North American continent where Warren Cowdery was appointed and ordained a presiding high priest the land of Freedom.
onika:
I think you’re over-reading Alma 46. The point of the passage, in context (46:11–25), is that the land that Captain Moroni lived in he designated as a land of liberty for the Nephites. It has nothing to do with a prophecy of the future of the land.
I get a kick out of Mormon’s arguing over where the so called events of the Book of Mormon took place…
Do I dare state the obvious…nothing has ever been found to confirm that any of those events ever took place anywhere…or that the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon even ever existed…
But hey I’d love to be proven worng…can someone please point me to a “Nephite” city? anyone?
Cr@ig:
Before we begin any discussion on this subject, please familiarize yourself with the extensive literature on the subject. You can start here:
Please read all the articles linked on that page, paying special attention to this one:
Having done that, I’m sure someone from FAIR will be willing to discuss this issue with you. But no one here wants to waste their time rehashing all the basics of very complex subject that goes far beyond your simplistic challenge.
Mike,
You could be right that Moroni was only praying for the Nephite Christians, but he also could be praying for future Christians:
Alma 46:
16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored.
Also, Nephi seemes to be saying the land of promise was for the Christians, specifically the one’s in North America when he describes these events:
1 Nephi 13:
13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.
14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.
15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.
16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.
17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.
18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.
19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.
30 Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren.
2 Nephi 1:
5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever,
and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me,
that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.
And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them;
wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity;
for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
So, since the North America, specifically the USA, has been “lifted up by the power of God above all other nations” and they battled against the mother Gentiles and were delivered by the power of God, and since Nephi says it all happens “upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance” that he is seeing North America in his vision?
South America hasn’t had nearly the freedom we have enjoyed, so does that mean the people haven’t been righteous? Or maybe that land just wasn’t the one blessed with the promise… Did people go to South America for freedom or gold? I don’t know much about South American history, so the only people I know about going to South America for freedom were the Nazi war criminals. People did come to North America for religious and economic freedom. In South America I think it was strongly encouraged that everyone be Catholic (the great and abominable church), but in North America there were many Christian religions and the country didn’t dictate which one you had to belong to.
Theodore asks:
Very simply, Theodore: The Nephites were in RETREAT. See Mormon 2:16, 20, 27-29; 3:5, 4:2-3, 18, 21-22; 5:3, 5, 6-7. According to the text, this period of retreat (with a few advances mixed in) lasted almost 40 years–from AD 345-384. Taking the above text in concert with Mormon 6:1-3, I must conclude that Cumorah is some distance north of Desolation–and even further north of the narrow neck which forms the northern border of the Land Southward.
As you know, Theodore, I reject your setting for the Land Southward, since it is not “nearly surrounded by water” in any sense except a continental one–which would render the phrase meaningless.
And, of course, your “Land South” has no narrow neck on its northern frontier.
Still, my Florida setting would plausibly allow for a New York Cumorah, but it is perhaps more probable that it is (under this setting) in the Appalachian Mountains in north Georgia, eastern Tennessee, or western North Carolina.
Steven said:
By Mormon 2:29 (350 AD) the Nephites had been driven out of the Land of Bountiful and into the south of the Land Northward (Desolation). The border between the Nephites and Lamanites at this time was at the narrow pass. They then had a ten year truce to 360 AD (Mormon 3:1).
Mormon gathered his people to the city Desolation, near the narrow pass, in the southern end of the Land Northward (Mormon 3:5). The city changed hands a few times but in the year 375 the Nephites were driven out of the city of Desolation for the last time.
So this final rout from the south end of the Land Northward began in 375 AD and lasted to 384, a period of ten years, not forty. From there they were driven from city to city, still in the Land Northward. In 380 AD they were still being driven out of their cities and villages in the Land Northward (Mormon 5:3-6). That was when Mormon wrote to the King of the Lamanites and secured a truce to gather the Nephites to Cumorah. That gathering took four years (Mormon 6:1-5).
That Cumorah was still in the Land Northward or the Land Desolation, is evidenced by the fact that this was the same place where the Jaredites had been destroyed and was where the scouts of Limhi discovered their remains. This land Northward was called Desolation when the Nephites settled there in the days of Helaman (Helaman 3:3-6).
So even though the Nephites were driven northward for several years they were still in the Land Northward.
More later – Theodore
Steven said:
Not so. It is very meaningful.
One thing that has generated much confusion in the geography of the Book of Mormon is that directional locations are always relative to the context in which they are given. For example, in the following verse the land north refers to the land of Zarahemla.
However, another verse in Helaman refers to the land of Bountiful as being the north.
In the following verse Bountiful is the land southward.
Yet two verses later Bountiful is the land northward.
Note that the Nephites inhabited the land Bountiful and they “had hemmed in the Lamanites on the SOUTH.” South of the land Bountiful, so the Lamanites could not overrun it. It was on the SOUTH end of Bountiful (in line with Bountiful and Desolation) that there was a sea on the east and a sea on the west where they fortified a line to hem in the Lamanites (in Florida).
In Alma 22, Mormon pauses in his narrative about Aaron converting the king of the Lamanites and gives a brief geographical overview. When Mormon continues with the narrative he refers in three separate verses to the “land of Nephi” and the “land of Zarahemla” as being the land of the Lamanites and the land of the Nephites respectively (Alma 26:23; 27:14; 27:14). In this context, and noting that that directional locations are always relative to the context in which they are given, Mormon’s summation statement becomes completely understandable and meaningful.
This is the only verse in the Book of Mormon where the phrase “small neck of land” is mentioned.
Steven said:
It certainly does. The Delmarva Peninsula fits the text perfectly as a landmark BY the northern border of the Land Bountiful, at the place where the “sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20). There is no “hourglass” of seas between the Land of Bountiful and the Land of Desolation. One needs to think outside of the “hourglass.”
I believe that this misunderstanding of the text, and the misunderstanding of the direction of flow of the River Sidon, have been the main sources of confusion on the Book of Mormon geography for 180 years.
Theodore
Mike Parker Says:
But no one here wants to waste their time rehashing all the basics of very complex subject that goes far beyond your simplistic challenge.
Cr@ig: Ummm gee Mike, thanks for putting my simplistic challenge in its place…so where did you say those Nephite cities are again? After all its such a simplistic challenge…
Cr@ig:
As I stated before, I’m more than happy to discuss the issue with you, but I don’t want to spend hours bringing you up to speed on the current state and thinking on Book of Mormon archeology. It’s complicated—much more complicated than “point to a Nephite city.”
If you are willing to put in the time and effort to educate yourself on the matter, then we could have a productive discussion. Until then, I’m not inclined to engage you in a debate.