Author: Jonathan Neville

As part of that effort, here’s the new blog I mentioned last week:
http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/.

Eventually I’ll have one for each of the theories: bookofmormonchile, bookofmormonbaja, bookofmormonheartland, etc.

I’m starting with Central America because it’s the one that has received the most attention, by far. I plan to cut through the clutter and discuss the essence of each theory.

Every theory comes with assumptions, interpretations, implications and consequences. Often these are obscure. In some cases, I suspect they are not completely thought out.

The agree/agree-to-disagree chart is a start. The goal is a more comprehensive analysis, in which the assumptions, interpretations, implications and consequences of each theory are set out so everyone can make an informed decision.

There is no right or wrong here; people can believe whatever they want. It’s a question of trade-offs and priorities. 
_____________________

Some people consider this process contentious, and sometimes it can appear that way, but really, this discussion is a presentation of alternatives. The Book of Mormon teaches the importance of choice, and choice requires alternatives: “it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.”

Furthermore, no one should feel compelled or obligated to defer to anyone else’s view. Some people might consider this question to be one the scholars should solve, but I disagree. Certainly, one does not need to be a scholar to understand the choices if they are presented clearly. “Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.”

In fact, the more I’ve thought about this, the more I realize the goal of reaching a consensus may have been a mistake. That goal carries the implication that a group of interested people could reach an agreement that others should follow.

Instead, this process seems designed to enable each individual to make his/her own choice. The key is that the choice be fully informed.

Looking back, that’s what I’ve tried to do on this blog; i.e., examine what has been written on the topic and discuss areas that have not been fully disclosed or analyzed. The discussion of the Hill Cumorah is a prime example.

With these principles in mind, we can all respect one another’s choices with no contention or argument. I want to understand fully what others believe and why. If I ever misstate an aspect of a theory, I hope someone lets me know so I can correct it.

Of course, this process bears the risk of people making their choices without considering all the information; i.e., people might make choices based on tradition, emotion, personal relationships, deference to others, etc. But that’s true of all the choices we make. We are each responsible for the amount of thought and effort we put into our choices.

This isn’t to say everyone needs to become an expert on the topic. But understanding the geography, in my opinion, is important for understanding the purposes of the Book of Mormon and how it can be used in our day to fulfill those purposes.

Another important point: I don’t care if anyone agrees with me or not. I do think that a full examination of the assumptions, interpretations, implications and consequences of each theory leads to a conclusion, which I have spelled out in Moroni’s America, but certainly that’s not the last word, and I’m continually adjusting my thinking as more evidence comes forth and I get more feedback.

I hope that by clarifying these issues, people who want to make informed choices can do so. 

Here’s my first look at areas in which the two theories agree and agree to disagree. I’ve tried to reflect both sides as accurately as possible. If anyone has more or different ideas, I’m open to editing this.

I think it’s great that so many people, in so many places, have figured out ways to make the text meaningful to them. Surely that’s one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon; i.e., the Lord wants us to apply the scriptures to ourselves. We can do this by relating to the stories and teachings in the scriptures.

We don’t have to live in Israel to understand the parable of the sower because people sow seeds everywhere in the world.

In that sense, the setting for the Book of Mormon doesn’t matter. We can learn from the lessons of Ammon and the king’s flocks whether we live in Panama, Chile, China, or Nigeria.

As beneficial as that is, however, there is a risk that people might take the Book of Mormon as nothing more than a parable. In fact, many people–including active members of the Church–do consider the Book of Mormon as a work of inspired fiction. A book-length parable, but not authentic history.

The thesis of this blog is that the Book of Mormon is not merely a parable, but it is an actual history of actual ancient people who lived on this planet Earth. This means it took place in a real place.
_____________________

Among those who accept the actual history concept, there are two schools of thought about geography. Some think there is one point of convergence between the text and the modern world: i.e., the Hill Cumorah in New York.

Others think there are no points of convergence between the text and the modern world; i.e., the Hill Cumorah is not in New York.

The saying goes, the un-examined life is not worth living. The corollary I explore here is, the un-examined geography is not worth believing. Although this blog focuses on Central America, I want to outline the basic parameters we’re dealing with.

Among those who agree the Hill Cumorah is in New York, there are variations. Some people think the entire history of the Book of Mormon took place in:

– New York.
– North America (not including Central America).
– North America (including Central America).
– the Western Hemisphere (including North, Central, and South America).

Among those who agree the Hill Cumorah is not in New York, there are variations. Some people think the entire history of the Book of Mormon took place in:

– Baja California.
– Mesoamerica (Central America)
– Panama
– Peru
– Colombia
– Chile
– Malaysia
– Africa
– many others
_____________________

Proponents of the various views have published books, articles, web pages, blogs, DVDs, PowerPoints, etc. The end result: there are two major theories of geography that seem to have generated the most discussion and analysis. These are:

The Mesoamerican theory

The North American theory (also called the Heartland and Moroni’s America).
_____________________

This blog focuses on Central America because it has become the consensus among some LDS scholars. Although the Church is officially neutral on the question of Book of Mormon geography, Church media, manuals, and instruction have focused primarily on the Mesoamerican theory for decades.

The latest evidence of this is the creation of a web page titled Book of Mormon Central. The people there are fantastic, dedicated and sincere. No problem with them at all. However, the page is a front for the Ancient American Foundation, a long-time promoter of the Mesoamerican theory.  The page purports to be neutral, but as I’ll show in subsequent posts, it strongly promotes the Mesoamerican theory to the exclusion (and denigration) of others.

Consider this blog to be the other side of the story.

Again, I emphasize this blog is not critical of the Central American or Mesoamerican theory. If people want to believe that theory, I have no problem with it.

To the extent I have a problem, it is with web pages that profess neutrality while pressing their thumbs squarely on the scales for the theory embraced by their management and funding sources.

Related to that, I think people who promote a theory need to be open about all the assumptions behind that theory and its implications, and own those.

So here goes.

Purpose
To help class members see how the Nephites’ attitudes and actions in times of war can serve as a pattern for dealing with our earthly conflicts and the battle against Satan.
________________________

The lesson manual doesn’t mention one of the most important of Alma’s teachings. It could be the most important. After all, it’s the last thing he taught before “he departed out of the land of Zarahemla, as if to go into the land of Melek. And it came to pass that he was never heard of more; as to his death or burial we know not of.” (Alma 45:18).

Do you know what Alma’s final message was?

Inexplicably, the lesson manual skips right over it.

This critically important teaching of Alma was the inspiration for Captain Moroni and his banner of liberty. Even more important, it applies to us today.
________________________

The three verses leading up to verse 18 (when Alma departs) ought to be the keys to everything that follows in the Book of Mormon, or at least everything that follows in the Book of Alma.

15 And now it came to pass that after Alma had said these things to Helaman, he blessed him, and also his other sons; and he also blessed the earth for the righteous’ sake.

Alma blesses his sons, but he also blesses the earth. Why would he do that?

Because he is invoking the covenant blessings given to Lehi and before him to the Jaredites. Here is the language:

16 And he said: Thus saith the Lord God—Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

This is another reason why it is so important that we understand what land Alma was referring to. It was the land of promise that Lehi obtained, the covenant land of his inheritance, which included the area where he landed (Florida), the area to which Nephi fled (Tennessee), the area to which King Mosiah fled (Illinois and Iowa), and all of the land of Zarahemla and Bountiful (Indiana, Ohio), up to the area around Cumorah (New York, Ontario).

Alma invoked the ancient covenant of blessing and cursing, based on the righteousness or wickedness, respectfully, of the people.

17 And now, when Alma had said these words he blessed the church, yea, all those who should stand fast in the faith from that time henceforth.

Alma blesses the earth, he invokes the covenant, and then he blesses the church and all righteous people. The rest of Alma–and the rest of the Book of Mormon, really–explains how the covenant works. Eventually, the covenant led to the destruction of the Nephites because the cursing overtook the blessing.

Today, those who live on the same land–the United States of America–have enjoyed the blessings of the covenant, but when the people become fully ripe in wickedness, the cursing will take over and we, like the Nephites and Jaredites before us, will also be destroyed, unless we repent.

This blessing/cursing is all the more powerful because it was Alma’s final message to the people.

The next question is, where did Alma learn about the covenant?
_______________________

First, notice that in Chapter 37, Alma spoke to Helaman about this covenant land. He explained that the Jaredites were destroyed because of the curse, and he didn’t want Helaman to let the people know about the Jaredite wickedness because he didn’t want his people, the Nephites, to adopt the same practices.

Alma 37:28 For behold, there is a curse upon all this land, that destruction shall come upon all those workers of darkness, according to the power of God, when they are fully ripe; therefore I desire that this people might not be destroyed…
31 Yea, and cursed be the land forever and ever unto those workers of darkness and secret combinations, even unto destruction, except they repent before they are fully ripe.

What’s more, Alma apparently learned about this principle from Abinadi. We don’t have all of Abinadi’s words (“many things did Abinadi prophesy against this people”), but his priests summarized them in Mosiah 12:12: “And again, he saith thou shalt be as the blossoms of a thistle, which, when it is fully ripe, if the wind bloweth, it is driven forth upon the face of the land. And he pretendeth the Lord hath spoken it. And he saith all this shall come upon thee except thou repent, and this because of thine iniquities.”

Centuries earlier, Nephi invoked the same language. “For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish.” 2 Nephi 18:16.

Although we don’t have all of Abinadi’s prophesy, we do have additional links to Alma’s teachings. “And it shall come to pass that except they repent I will utterly destroy them from off the face of the earth; yet they shall leave a record behind them, and I will preserve them for other nations which shall possess the land; yea, even this will I do that I may discover the abominations of this people to other nations.” (Mosiah 12:8)

Of course, this is a shadow; the Jaredites left a record from which we can discover their abominations, just as the Nephites left a record from which we can discover their abominations.

Alma explained this: “For behold, the Lord saw that his people began to work in darkness, yea, work secret murders and abominations; therefore the Lord said, if they did not repent they should be destroyed from off the face of the earth…. And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying: I will bring forth out of darkness unto light all their secret works and their abominations; and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth; and I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land.” (Alma 37:22, 24-25).

Alma had warned the people about this when he invoked the covenant against the people of Ammonihah: “Behold, now I say unto you that he commandeth you to repent; and except ye repent, ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. But behold, this is not all—he has commanded you to repent, or he will utterly destroy you from off the face of the earth; yea, he will visit you in his anger, and in his fierce anger he will not turn away.
“Behold, do ye not remember the words which he spake unto Lehi, saying that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land? And again it is said that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.” Alma 9:12-13.

If those who currently inhabit the covenant land do not recognize how the covenant applies, they will be subject to the same cursing Alma warned the people about.

That’s one of the most important teachings of the Book of Mormon. It’s why Mormon and Moroni wrote and deposited the record in the New York area. The Book of Mormon took place in Moroni’s America.

Purpose
To help class members gain a greater understanding of life after death and the mercy that is available to them through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Points to consider.

Why did Alma teach his sons?

Because he was so concerned about the situation of his society that he wanted to innoculate his own children.

Alma 35:15 Now Alma, being grieved for the iniquity of his people, yea for the wars, and the bloodsheds, and the contentions which were among them; and having been to declare the word, or sent to declare the word, among all the people in every city; and seeing that the hearts of the people began to wax hard, and that they began to be offended because of the strictness of the word, his heart was exceedingly sorrowful.

How similar is this to our societies today? The hearts of the people are hardened to the point that they don’t want to even hear about God. In the U.S. and other countries, God is effectively banned from schools and public spaces. Many people in society are offended because of the strictness of the word of God. We see this all around us.

Think of what it means to be offended in the first place. “It is reported that President Brigham Young once said that he who takes offense when no offense was intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense was intended is usually a fool.” Think of people who have said they’re offended by what religious people say and/or do. Do they have a legitimate cause for concern, or do they just not like the message because it may implicate them?

Alma 35:16 Therefore, he caused that his sons should be gathered together, that he might give unto them every one his charge, separately, concerning the things pertaining unto righteousness. And we have an account of his commandments, which he gave unto them according to his own record.

Hopefully none of us are offended by “things pertaining unto righteousness.” And do we keep records (journals) of what goes on in our families?

________________________

Although this lesson focuses on the resurrection and atonement, I like to think about how it exemplifies the ninth Article of Faith:

9 We believe
-all that God has revealed, (scriptures and what God has told us individually)
-all that He does now reveal, and we believe (living prophets and what God tells us individually)
-that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. (future revelations to the prophets and us as individuals)

Alma cited Abinadi extensively in his teachings to his sons. For example, he cited Abinadi’s comments about the blessings and cursings on the land (which I discuss in Lesson 31). He also quoted Abinadi’s teachings about the resurrection. There’s a nice analysis of this link between Alma and Abinadi here. You can download the .pdf. I put a copy of the chart below. In that chart, the comparison doesn’t start until Chapter 39, but in lesson 31, I show Alma started referring to Abinadi sooner than that.
________________________

Corianton apparently was influenced by the teachings of Nehor, who “testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.” (Alma 1:4).

Because Alma taught about judgment and good and evil, Corianton was apparently confused by the contradiction between the teachings of Alma and Nehor’s teachings. Perhaps Corianton committed sin because he had been persuaded that everyone would have eternal life in the end. This teaching may account for the situation in society that concerned Alma so much.

To respond, Alma clarified what the resurrection is, what the first resurrection is, and what it means to have something restored. In Alma 41:15, Alma clarifies that ” the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all.”
_________________________

In my opinion, cognitive dissonance, as Adams describes it, is one of the main obstacles to reaching a consensus about Book of Mormon geography.

______________

Adams points out that when the media knows something, any reality that contradicts what they know “is invisible to them because it doesn’t fit their worldview.”

“So… cognitive dissonance happens.”

When the facts we observe are the opposite of the media’s worldview, the media acts as if reality is impossible and they act based on what they know, even though it’s completely wrong.

It’s an interesting application of the idea of cognitive dissonance.

Adams writes, “Meanwhile, the unhypnotized laugh themselves into a stupor watching this spectacle of cognitive dissonance. Humor aside, it is a marvelous and incredible thing to behold.”

That’s how I feel reading much of what is published about Book of Mormon geography in the MMM (Mainstream Mormon Media).

To be clear, I’m not judging anyone. I’m not criticizing anyone. I’m merely observing that, as Adams writes, “cognitive dissonances isn’t influenced by intelligence. [People] believe whatever fits [their] worldview. Just like the rest of us.”

He goes on to make an important point.

“The fun part is that we can see cognitive dissonance when it happens to others… but we can’t see it when it happens to us. So don’t get too smug about this. You’re probably next.”
____________

I’ve been posting examples of cognitive dissonance for two years now.

The Hill Cumorah is a classic case. Because a New York Hill Cumorah destroys what is left of the Mesoamerican theory, the proponents insist Cumorah cannot be in New York. I’m not criticizing them; I’m simply observing the problem they face with a New York Cumorah.

So how does one deal with a situation that contradicts one’s world view?

In this case, scholars say, first, that Oliver Cowdery didn’t know what he was talking about when he wrote Letter VII, or he was relying on a rumor (or account) of an old Indian battle in the area, or was speculating, or simply made a mistake, or was lying. Second, they say Joseph simply adopted this false narrative and made it his own. Third, they say Joseph and Oliver never received a revelation about Cumorah (of course, that conclusion doesn’t follow from the absence of a recorded revelation, but it’s good enough in a situation of cognitive dissonance). Fourth, they say Joseph and Oliver (and the others) never actually entered Mormon’s repository of records, but merely had a vision of a mountain that is actually somewhere in Mexico. And they had this vision at least twice, and related it to Brigham Young and others, who misunderstood their statements as accounts of actual events. On top of that, these scholars believe the New York hill is a “clean hill” because one person questioned a few farmers on the north and on the east, and they said they never found arrowheads. (It is entirely irrelevant that Oliver said the battles were on the west, that there are accounts of farmers plowing up bushels of arrowheads and other artifacts for decades, and that eyewitnesses saw boxes full of arrowheads and other artifacts when the road to the top of Cumorah was excavated.)

All of that and more makes sense if what you know contradicts all of this evidence.

So to repeat, I’m not criticizing those who continue to believe Cumorah is somewhere in Mexico. I’m just saying they are dealing with cognitive dissonance the best way they can.

The KnoWhys on Book of Mormon Central are additional examples. Even when the point of the KnoWhy can be made better using examples from ancient North America, BOMC is blind to those and instead uses less effective (and mostly contrived) examples from Mesoamerica.
________________

IMO, everyone involved with this issue needs to set aside preconceptions and take a fresh look. I know of no other way to overcome cognitive dissonance.

I can speak from experience. At one time, I, too, dealt with this cognitive dissonance. I actually believed Cumorah was a “clean hill” because of what I read in the MMM. I actually believed Cumorah was in Mexico, that Joseph and Oliver told Brigham about a vision, etc. The whole ball of wax. It wasn’t until I took a fresh look that all of this looked much different.

So now, having changed my mind, am I dealing with cognitive dissonance from another perspective?

I don’t think so. (Of course, no one thinks they are).

The way to tell is whether you can fully and fairly articulate different perspectives and viewpoints, and if you deal with every aspect of an issue from every perspective that has been expressed. I’m not aware of any points made by the non-Cumorah advocates that I haven’t addressed. If there are any, let me know.

Of course, “dealing with” an issue is not the same as fully assessing it. But the goal is to determine exactly where people agree and where they agree to disagree. Then third parties can make informed decisions.

And in the meantime, there are no hard feelings, no judging, no being offended. It’s purely a methodical examination of the facts, together with the assumptions, the repercussions, and the psychology of the various perspectives. The clearer we are, the better for those who need to make up their own minds.

[BTW, Adams also writes about the “Bait and Switch Confusopoly Economy” which is a direct analogy to the long-time debate about Book of Mormon geography. His point is that car sales, wireless phone plans, insurance policies, and the rest are intentionally confusing so people cannot compare competitors. They’re also so confusing you can’t ever get exactly what you want. Likewise, you can read for hours in the MMM and never find specific, clear and determinative yes/no points. That’s why I’ve been focusing on Cumorah lately.]

I turn to the dictionary for a definition. “Criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.”

A more complete definition:

1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.
2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.
3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.
4. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.
5. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.:
historical criticism; literary criticism.
6. investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, especially Biblical ones:
textual criticism.
_______________

I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m not passing judgment on any geography theories. People can believe whatever they want and I’m fine with that. No doubt, I’m inarticulate sometimes, but I’m writing this so people won’t take my posts the wrong way. Anyone who thinks I’m being judgmental should let me know and I’ll edit whatever comes across wrong.

Instead of criticizing other theories, I’m trying to clarify implications, assumptions, and points of disagreement.

For example, some scholars reject Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII. That’s perfectly fine with me. We can agree to disagree about that. I’m not passing judgment on them or on their theories, neither on a personal basis nor on their motives, etc. I just want it clearly understood what acceptance and rejection mean in terms of implications.

The other day I posted about false and misleading geography theories. I noted the obvious fact that if Cumorah is in New York, a theory that puts it somewhere else is false and misleading. I noted as well that if Cumorah is not in New York, a theory that puts it in New York is false and misleading. (By definition, an abstract map cannot represent a real-world setting and in that sense is false; whether it is misleading depends on its purpose and disclosures associated with it. So long as the map is intended merely as an aid to understanding the text by depicting relative distances, and is accompanied by a clear statement that it reflects one of many interpretations of the text, it would not be misleading.)

In my view, the evidence supports the New York Cumorah. Others disagree. We can set out the evidence and let people decide for themselves, with no hard feelings, no sense of being offended or judged. But surely everyone involved with this topic agrees with the proposition set out in the previous paragraph about Cumorah. It’s not a false dichotomy. It’s not a misstatement. It’s not a logical error. And it’s certainly not passing judgment.

This is an example of clarifying the issues.

In a separate post scheduled for Aug 13, I explore that in more detail.