Fun with John E. Clark--Encyclopedia of Mormonism

I mentioned before how often the citation cartel cites Brother John E. Clark. Brother Clark wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism titled "Book of Mormon Geography." I think he did an excellent job summarizing the official Church positions on this topic and setting out the cautions we should all keep in mind when we study the geography and historicity issues. However, he spends a lot of time on criteria that don't appear in the text, which is problematic. It's easy to see why he is popular among the citation cartel.

I don't know how many people read the Encyclopedia of Mormonism any more, but it's online and comes across as authoritative. I'd like to see it corrected and edited, so I offer my peer review here.
_________

Here is the article, with emphasis added and my comments in red.

Book of Mormon Geography

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Clark, John E.

Although the Book of Mormon is primarily a religious record of the Nephites, Lamanites, and jaredites, enough geographic details are embedded in the narrative to allow reconstruction of at least a rudimentary geography of Book of Mormon lands. In the technical usage of the term "geography" (e.g., physical, economic, cultural, or political), no Book of Mormon geography has yet been written. Most Latter-day Saints who write geographies have in mind one or both of two activities: first, internal reconstruction of the relative size and configuration of Book of Mormon lands based upon textual statements and allusions; second, speculative attempts to match an internal geography to a location within North or South America. [He's probably right about "most" LDS authors. People talk about an "internal geography" all the time, and it is nonsense. No two people can independently come up with the same "internal geography" because the text does not give two basic requirements: distance and direction. The effort to develop an "internal geography" is a pointless academic exercise, comparable to the standard "how many angels on the head of a pin" debate. At best, you might get a few people to agree on some assumptions. If they're academics, they will claim "expertise" and seek to impose their assumptions on others, and before you know it, you've got a Mesoamerican geography. In my view, the only possible way to develop a geography is to start with a known location--a pin in the map. I see no way to get around this.]

Three questions relating to Book of Mormon geography are discussed here: (1) How can one reconstruct a Book of Mormon geography? (2) What does a Book of Mormon geography look like? (3) What hypothetical locations have been suggested for Book of Mormon lands?

RECONSTRUCTING INTERNAL BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY. Although Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography in order to focus attention on the spiritual message of the book, private speculation and scholarship in this area have been abundant. Using textual clues, laymen and scholars have formulated over sixty possible geographies. [The actual number is the number of people who have sought to develop an internal geography, because no two people can possibly come up with the identical version. It requires pure guesswork for both distance and direction.] Dissimilarities among them stem from differences in (1) the interpretation of scriptural passages and statements of General Authorities; (2) procedures for reconciling scriptural information; (3) initial assumptions concerning the text and traditional LDS identification of certain features mentioned (especially the hill Cumorah and the "narrow neck of land," which figure prominently in the text); and (4) personal penchants and disciplinary training. [Fair enough.]

Those who believe that reconstructing a Book of Mormon geography is possible must first deal with the usual problems of interpreting historical texts. Different weights must be given to various passages, depending upon the amount and precision of the information conveyed. Many Book of Mormon cities cannot be situated because of insufficient textual information; this is especially true for Lamanite and Jaredite cities. [I disagree with this because no Book of Mormon cities can be situated without a known reference point, or pin in the map.] The Book of Mormon is essentially a Nephite record, and most geographic elements mentioned are in Nephite territory.

From textual evidence, one can approximate some spatial relationships of various natural features and cities. Distances in the Book of Mormon are recorded in terms of the time required to travel from place to place. The best information for reconstructing internal geography comes from the accounts of wars between Nephites and Lamanites during the first century B.C., with more limited information from Nephite missionary journeys. Travel distance can be standardized to a degree by controlling, where possible, for the nature of the terrain (e.g., mountains versus plains) and the relative velocity (e.g., an army's March versus travel with children or animals). The elementary internal geography presented below is based on an interpretation of distances thus standardized and directions based on the text. [This is completely illusory. "Standardizing" a guess doesn't make it reliable or accurate. Even the assumptions about terrain are guesswork.]

AN INTERNAL BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY. Numerous attempts have been made to diagram physical and political geographies depicting features mentioned in the text, but this requires many additional assumptions and is difficult to accomplish without making approximate relationships appear precise (Sorenson, 1991). The description presented below of the size and configuration of Book of Mormon lands and the locations of settlements within it summarizes the least ambiguous evidence. [Brother Clark acknowledges the problems here, but as we'll see, he makes a cascading series of assumptions designed to lead to his predetermined outcome, not an objective analysis.]

Book of Mormon lands were longer from north to south than from east to west. [Nothing in the text requires this.] They consisted of two land masses connected by an isthmus ("a narrow neck of land") flanked by an "east sea" and a "west sea" (Alma 22:27, 32). [It's always fun to misquote the scriptures. The phrase "narrow neck of land" appears only one time in the text--in Ether 10:20. Alma 22:32 refers to "a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward." Mesoamerican seers always conflate different terms, of course, but here Brother Clark puts the wrong phrase in quotations. How many readers are going to check the reference to see it's incorrectly quoted? Note that Alma 22:32 also says "the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water," a passage that completely disqualifies Mesoamerica. Mesoamerica is called Central America because it is connected on both ends to North and South America; i.e., far from being nearly surrounded by water, Mesoamerica extends into huge land masses.] The land north of the narrow neck was known as the "land northward" and that to the south as the "land southward" (Alma 22:32). [The division between the two lands is a small neck, not a narrow neck. My question is, how could an editor allow these obvious errors reach print? I can understand how a Mesoamerican seer would conflate the terms--they literally can't unsee their Mesoamerican geography--but wouldn't an editor catch this?] The Jaredite narrative took place entirely in the land northward (Omni 1:22; Ether 10:21), [the scriptures don't require this, so a qualifier would be helpful here] but details are insufficient to place their cities relative to one another. [Agreed.] Most of the Nephite narrative, on the other hand, took place in the land southward. Travel accounts for the land southward indicate that the Nephites and Lamanites occupied an area that could be traversed north to south by normal travel in perhaps thirty days. ["Perhaps" saves this assertion, because the text says no such thing. This paragraph seems to be an exercise in trying to make the scriptures less ambiguous by assuming ambiguity away, conflating terms, etc. So far, we've learned nothing about the text's description of the geography.]

The land southward was divided by a "narrow strip of wilderness" that ran from the "sea east" to the "sea west" (Alma 22:27). [I agree that the lands of the Nephites and Lamanites were divided by the narrow strip of wilderness--and I'm very glad Brother Clark didn't write "narrow strip of mountainous wilderness here--but I don't agree that the text says it was the "land southward" that was divided or that this strip of wilderness ran from the sea east to the sea west. I've shown elsewhere that it was the territory itself, not the strip of wilderness, that ran from one sea to the other.] Nephites occupied the land to the north of this wilderness, and the Lamanites, that to the south. [Agreed.] Sidon, the only river mentioned by name, ran northward between eastern and western wildernesses from headwaters in the narrow strip of wilderness (Alma 22:29). [Seriously? The text doesn't say the river Sidon flowed northward, and it never uses the term headwaters. This is pure Mesoamerican seership.] The Sidon probably emptied into the east sea-based on the description of the east wilderness as a rather wide, coastal zone-but its mouth is nowhere specified. ["Probably" doesn't save this unjustifiable speculation. First, the text refers to four seas: east, west, north, south. It also refers to the sea west south, which I take to mean there were at least two seas west (a north and a south). Of course, this doesn't fit a Mesoamerican geography, so Mesoamerican seers claim that either 1) the four seas are metaphorical, or 2) the Pacific was both the sea west and the sea south. It's not clear what Brother Clark means by saying a north-flowing river empties into the east sea, but maybe in his view the east sea is also the north sea? At any rate, none of this sentence matches the scripture, except the acknowledgement that the mouth of Sidon is nowhere specified--unless the head is the mouth, which it is in some usages.] 

The relative locations of some important Nephite cities can be inferred from the text. Zarahemla was the Nephite capital in the first century B.C. That portion of the land southward occupied by the Nephites was known as the "land of Zarahemla" (Hel. 1:18). [I can't tell if this is an erroneous citation or just another speculation, but Helaman 1:18 says nothing about the land southward.] The city of Nephi, the original Nephite colony, by this time had been occupied by Lamanites and served at times as one of their capitals for the land south of the narrow wilderness divide (Alma 47:20). Based upon the migration account of Alma ₁, the distance between the cities of Zarahemla and Nephi can be estimated to be about twenty-two days' travel by a company that includes children and flocks, mostly through mountainous terrain (cf. Mosiah 23:3;24:20, 25). [This "mountainous terrain" is visible in the text only to Mesoamerican seers. The term "mountain" appears five times in Mosiah, all in the same quotation from Isaiah 52:7. The Mesoamerican seers read "mountain" into the text because there are mountains in Mesoamerica, not because Joseph dictated that word.]

The distance from Zarahemla to the narrow neck was probably less than that between Zarahemla and Nephi. The principal settlement near the narrow neck was the city of Bountiful, located near the east sea (Alma 52:17-23). This lowland city was of key military importance in controlling access to the land northward from the east-sea side. [I get it now. Brother Clark thinks this is among the "least ambiguous evidence" because he has a particular geography in mind. None of this speculation is in the text, of course, as anyone can see by referring to the cited passage.]

The relative location of the hill Cumorah is most tenuous, since travel time from Bountiful, or the narrow neck, to Cumorah is nowhere specified. Cumorah was near the east sea in the land northward, and the limited evidence suggests that it was probably not many days' travel from the narrow neck of land (Mosiah 8:8; Ether 9:3). It is also probable that the portion of the land northward occupied by the Jaredites was smaller than the Nephite-Lamanite land southward. [Although the cited scriptures don't even mention the narrow neck of land--only Ether 10:20 does--I don't disagree with this speculation.

Book of Mormon lands encompassed mountainous wildernesses, coastal plains, valleys, a large river, a highland lake, and lowland wetlands. [The only mountains mentioned in the text are those from which the Gadianton robbers sallied forth--and those were mountains and hills. Mountains were distinct from the wilderness every time the two are mentioned (Hel. 11:25, 31; 3 Nephi 3:20; 4:1). Only Mesoamerican seers find "mountainous wilderness" in the text. No coastal plains are mentioned; all the plains are in the interior of the land. One river is named, but other rivers are mentioned. No highland lake is in the text; that's an invention of the Mesoamerican seers, as are the lowland wetlands.] The land also apparently experienced occasional volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (3 Ne. 8:5-18). [More fun with volcanoes! And this is supposedly among the "least ambiguous evidence" in the text? There is not a single reference to a volcano in the text Joseph translated, but the Mesoamerican seers find it anyway.] Culturally, the Book of Mormon describes an urbanized, agrarian people having metallurgy (Hel. 6:11), writing (1 Ne. 1:1-3), lunar and solar calendars (2 Ne. 5:28; Omni 1:21), [lunar for sure, but nothing in the text refers to a solar calendar] domestic animals (2 Ne. 5:11), various grains (1 Ne. 8:1), gold, silver, pearls, and "costly apparel" (Alma 1:29; 4 Ne. 1:24). Based upon these criteria, many scholars currently see northern Central America and southern Mexico (Mesoamerica) as the most likely location of Book of Mormon lands. [This is fun. No doubt, based upon these criteria, scholars see Mesoamerica. They can't unsee it because they are Mesoamerican seers. But notice how many of "these criteria" are not found in the text Joseph translated. These criteria are all inventions of Mesoamerican seers, created solely to fit their theory of geography and to match Mesoamerican culture. It's axiomatic that "many scholars," aka Mesoamerican seers, would "see" Mesoamerica in the text when they've added Mesoamerican features that aren't present in what Joseph translated.] However, such views are private and do not represent an official position of the Church. [Agreed, although "private" is the wrong term for such a widely dispersed theory that dominates not only Church and Church-related publications and media, but all (allegedly) scholarly LDS publications.]

HYPOTHESIZED LOCATIONS OF BOOK OF MORMON LANDS. Two issues merit consideration in relation to possible external correlations of Book of Mormon geography. What is the official position of the Church, and what are the pervading opinions of its members?

In early Church history, the most common opinion among members and Church leaders was that Book of Mormon lands encompassed all of North and South America, although at least one more limited alternative view was also held for a time by some. [The only clearly common opinion was that the Hill Cumorah was in New York. Some speculated about Zarahemla in Guatemala or South America, but everyone agreed Cumorah was in New York.] The official position of the Church is that the events narrated in the Book of Mormon occurred somewhere in the Americas, but that the specific location has not been revealed. This position applies both to internal geographies and to external correlations. No internal geography has yet been proposed or approved by the Church, and none of the internal or external geographies proposed by individual members (including that proposed above) has received approval. Efforts in that direction by members are neither encouraged nor discouraged. In the words of John A. Widtsoe, an apostle, "All such studies are legitimate, but the conclusions drawn from them, though they may be correct, must at the best be held as intelligent conjectures" (Vol. 3, p. 93).

Three statements sometimes attributed to the Prophet Joseph Smith are often cited as evidence of an official Church position. An 1836 statement asserts that "Lehi and his company…landed on the continent of South America, in Chili [sic ], thirty degrees, south latitude" (Richards, Little, p. 272). This view was accepted by Orson Pratt and printed in the footnotes to the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon, but insufficient evidence exists to clearly attribute it to Joseph Smith ("Did Lehi Land in Chili [sic]?"; cf. Roberts, Vol. 3, pp. 501-503, and Widtsoe, Vol. 3, pp. 93-98). [Actually, the footnote is equivocal. It reads, "believed to be on the coast of Chile, S. America." Pratt's footnotes identified the Jaredite "heaps of earth" as "the ancient mounds of North America." and the waters of Ripliancum as "supposed to be Lake Ontario." Of Cumorah, he was not equivocal. The footnote to Mormon 6:2 reads: "The hill Cumorah is in Manchester, Ontario Co., N. York."]

In 1842 an editorial in the Church newspaper claimed that "Lehi…landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]" (T&S 3 [Sept. 15, 1842]:921-22). This would move the location of Lehi's landing some 3,000 miles north of the proposed site in Chile. Although Joseph Smith had assumed editorial responsibility for the paper by this time, it is not known whether this statement originated with him or even represented his views. [Agreed. Well done. Although now it's pretty clear Benjamin Winchester and W.W. Phelps were writing the unattributed material in the Times and Seasons, including these articles.] Two weeks later, another editorial appeared in the Times and Seasons that, in effect, constituted a book review of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, by John Lloyd Stephens. This was the first accessible book in English containing detailed descriptions and drawings of ancient Mayan ruins. Excerpts from it were included in the Times and Seasons, along with the comment that "it will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens' ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts. The truth injures no one" (T&S 3 [Oct. 1, 1842]:927).

In statements since then, Church leaders have generally declined to give any opinion on issues of Book of Mormon geography. When asked to review a map showing the supposed landing place of Lehi's company, President Joseph F. Smith declared that the "Lord had not yet revealed it" (Cannon, p. 160 n.). In 1929, Anthony W. Ivins, counselor in the First Presidency, added, "There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question [of Book of Mormon geography]…. We are just waiting until we discover the truth" (CR, Apr. 1929, p. 16). While the Church has not taken an official position with regard to location of geographical places, the authorities do not discourage private efforts to deal with the subject (Cannon). [Good summary.]

The unidentified Times and Seasons editorialist seems to have favored modern Central America as the setting for Book of Mormon events. As noted, recent geographies by some Church members promote this identification, but others consider upstate New York or South America the correct setting. [Others consider the U.S. from Florida to New York to Missouri, citing both Cumorah and Zarahemla (D&C 125) as pins in the map.] Considerable diversity of opinion remains among Church members regarding Book of Mormon geography; however, most students of the problem agree that the hundreds of geographical references in the Book of Mormon are remarkably consistent-even if the students cannot always agree upon precise locations.

Of the numerous proposed external Book of Mormon geographies, none has been positively and unambiguously confirmed by archaeology. More fundamentally, there is no agreement on whether such positive identification could be made or, if so, what form a "proof" would take; nor is it clear what would constitute "falsification" or "disproof" of various proposed geographies. Until these methodological issues have been resolved, all internal and external geographies-including supposed archaeological tests of them-should, at best, be considered only intelligent conjectures. [Fair enough.]

Bibliography

Allen, Joseph L. Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon. Orem, Utah, 1989.

Cannon, George Q. "Book of Mormon Geography." Juvenile Instructor 25 (Jan. 1, 1890):18-19; repr., Instructor 73 (Apr. 1938):159-60.

Clark, John E. "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies." Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1 (1989):20-70.

Hauck, F. Richard. Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, 1988.

Palmer, David A. In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico. Bountiful, Utah, 1981.

Palmer, David. Review of Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, by Joseph L. Allen. BYU Studies 30 (Summer 1990):136-142.

Raish, Martin H. Review of Mormon's Map, by John L. Sorenson BYU Studies 39:3 (2000):181-183.

Richards, F., and J. Little, eds. Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, rev. ed. Salt Lake City, 1925.

Roberts, B. H. New Witnesses for God, 3 vols. Salt Lake City, 1909.

Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City, 1985.

Sorenson, John L. A Hundred and Fifty Years of Book of Mormon Geographies: A History of the Ideas. Salt Lake City, 1991.

Warren, Bruce W. Review of Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon: Settlements and Routes in Ancient America, by Richard Hauck. BYU Studies 30 (Summer 1990):127-136.

Warren, Bruce W. Review of An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, by John L. Sorenson. BYU Studies 30 (Summer 1990):127-136.

Warren, Bruce W., and Thomas Stuart Ferguson. The Messiah in Ancient America. Provo, Utah, 1987.

Washburn, J. Nile. Book of Mormon Lands and Times. Salt Lake City, 1974.

Widtsoe, John A. Evidences and Reconciliations, 3 vols. Salt Lake City, 1951.

JOHN E. CLARK

Fun with Cumorah artifacts

This post gives an example of the fun that ensues when your Mesoamerican lenses blind you to what would be obvious if you just took them off for a moment.

The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies published an article titled "Looking for Artifacts at New York's Hill Cumorah" in 2005. Here's the abstract:

"Landon Smith gives an account of artifact hunting in the fields surrounding Hill Cumorah, near Palmyra, New York. He presents evidence that the archaeology of New York does not support the idea that Book of Mormon peoples lived in that region or that New York's Hill Cumorah was the scene of the final battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites."

You can read the whole thing here. I'm going to go ahead and copy the entire article here with my notes.

But first, I have to note that BMAF characterized Langdon's account as "The Demise of One 'Mormon Myth' about the Hill Cumorah." See that article here. It's kind of fun that the BMAF article claims Langdon "had not been exposed to the thinking that the 'real' hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon was located in Mesoamerica," but the editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies says Langdon "wrote the letter in response to Dr. Clark's article."  Who could read the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies in 2004 and not know about the Mesoamerican theory?

Now read the article with my comments and think about which myth was really involved here.

_______________________

The following account of artifact hunting in the fields surrounding Hill Cumorah, near Palmyra, New York, is from a letter by Langdon Smith of New Haven, Vermont, and addressed to John E. Clark, professor of anthropology at Brigham Young University and director of the BYU New World Archaeological Foundation, based in Chiapas, Mexico. The letter has been slightly edited and is used with the author’s permission. Mr. Smith wrote the letter in response to Dr. Clark’s article “Archaeology and Cumorah Questions” (JBMS 13/1–2, 2004), which presents evidence that the archaeology of New York does not support the idea that Book of Mormon peoples lived in that region or that New York’s Hill Cumorah was the scene of the final battles between the Nephites and the Lamanites. —Ed. [This editorial comment is a lot of fun, as we'll see when I post my comments on Dr. Clark's article in the future.]

On my dairy farm in Vermont in the mid-1950s, while harrowing in the spring, I saw a black, pointed object. It was a black chert “knife.” Wow! I have always been interested in historical things. So I
looked all around, but that was it. Several years ago I found another point. My farm efforts were winding down, so I had more time to look.

Since retiring, I have worked on some state site digs with professionals. By myself I have also found
over 378 new Native American sites, obtaining Vermont State site numbers for all of them. I have made out all the required survey forms and sent the relevant information to the state offices.

At this time, I have close to 5,000 arrowheads with all the other tools—bifaces, preforms, knives,
scrapers, and so on. Altogether I have 17,000 pieces. Each piece has been traced, with the site number
and catalog numbers painted on. Maps are made of each site with X marks locating where each piece
was found. [Well done. It would be interesting to see this map.]

In working with the state, I get to see things that I’m probably not supposed to see—like a New
York State site map. Around Syracuse and the areas in eastern New York State there are many sites
recorded, as there are around and south of Rochester in western New York. But around the Hill
Cumorah area, the closest site numbers are about 60 miles away.

Wherever early American sites are, collectors will find them, plowed fields being the best place
to look. Having been to the Hill Cumorah Pageant at other times, I knew that there were plowed fields
nearby. Since I had the experience of searching and finding sites, my interest in finding sites of possible Nephite/Lamanite arrowheads was high. There were also stories of how Brother Willard Bean found arrowheads by the basketful around the hill and sold them to tourists. If battles took place at the hill, and a lot of people took part—everything sounds about right—the area should be covered with all kinds of artifacts. [It would have been covered in 400 AD. 1600 years later, is that still a reasonable expectation?]

I have made the seven-hour drive twice in the past few years. Both times I traveled to Palmyra
during the early planting season—fields just plowed and harrowed, following a good rain to wash the
dirt off any artifacts.

There are some areas that are not plowed and cannot easily be hunted, including the seating area west of the hill and the car parking area on the west side of the highway. North of the hill there is a gully
going west to east with trees growing along it, circling from west of the road past the north end of the
hill to the east side. Along the whole east side of the hill is a large plowed field. To the north of the gully with trees is the farm that is owned by the Clark family. They have several plowed fields in the area.

Arriving at Cumorah, I have asked workers on the grounds around the visitors’ center and people
inside the center about arrowheads. Their comments were: “Oh yes, people find them around here all the time.” I would ask, “Have you found any yourself?” “Well, no.” “Do you know anyone who has found some?” “No.” “Have you seen any actual pieces found by others?” “No.” [It would be unusual for people working inside the center to find arrowheads, just as it would be for those working on the long-landscaped grounds. A good interview would have asked about the discrepancy between the statements.]

I have walked to the big meadow east of the hill. I have searched it thoroughly. I was thinking, “There
have to be remains here, but where?” [Apparently he didn't read Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII. He said the battles took place on the west side. Why would anyone look on the east side of the hill?] No artifacts—not even flint chips of any kind. So I went north to the Clark farm. [On the north? This is as bad as searching on the east.]  I stopped and asked the owner’s wife if I could walk over the corn field. “What are you looking for?” “Looking for arrowheads—is it okay?” “Well, sure.” “You must get pestered a lot by people wanting to go out there looking around.” “We’ve been here over 40 years, and you’re the first to come and ask to hunt for arrowheads.” [Maybe because serious searchers had read Letter VII and knew the battles were on the west of the hill?]

If there are artifacts out there, collectors will find them, and they and their friends will be all over
that area. [What does he think they've been doing since 1827?] The Clarks’ fields yielded the same as the one east of the hill: not one single arrowhead and not one single piece of flint chipping. [Exactly what one would expect from Letter VII.] Crisscrossing all those plowed fields, which are hundreds of acres, I found no evidence of any kind. If a large group of people came to this hill and had a big battle, they would have been making and sharpening more tools—artifacts. [I'm curious why this would be so. They had four years to prepare, on both sides. If I'm in a battle for my life, the last thing I'm doing is "making and sharpening" tools. I'd get what I need from my fallen comrades. Nothing in the text suggests people were "making and sharpening more tools" near Cumorah.] If there are no arrowheads, what about all of the broken pieces, the chips, the flakes—leftovers from making and sharpening? Some of these pieces would be smaller than a little fingernail. Where are these pieces? People do not generally pick up this trash. [First, he looks in the wrong place. Then he expects to find tiny pieces of flint from 1400 years ago, produced by people "making and sharpening tools" in the midst of a quick, fierce battle to the end, in fields that have been plowed and farmed for decades. This constitutes expertise in archaeology.]

There is an old pond in our area of Vermont which has old sites around it. The University of
Vermont has created a chart that pictures 26 different styles of points found in this area (the points
date from 11,000–12,000 bc up through the time of European contact). I have found at least one,
usually many, of each type from that site. When I first started looking, I made the friendship of nine
gentlemen who had large collections (5,000 to 6,000 pieces each). On asking these men, “Where do you get most of them?” their answer was something like, “Oh, half from around the pond.” That half would include 2,000 pieces for each of the nine persons, or about 18,000 pieces. I look each year and find 25 to 30. Plus, there are other people hunting there—they’re finding stuff too. It’s more than just a good place to take a walk. But when that spot is put up against the history of events at “Cumorah,” it should pale into insignificance. [Except for some obvious differences. People congregate around water; at this pond, he has over 10,000 years (supposedly) of continuous habitation. The pond is not plowed every year, yet they have found only about 2 pieces/year of habitation. By contrast, on the west side of Cumorah, you have a fierce battle that takes place in a few days 1400 years ago in an area not inhabited before or since, It's an area that has been scoured since 1827 not by nine persons but by thousands of people. It has been farmed for decades. And our author doesn't even look in the west, where Oliver Cowdery said the battles took place, anyway; he looks east and north. This is "good enough" work to confirm the biases of the Mesoamerican seers, but it's laughable to me.]

On this old site in Vermont, even if all of the arrow points were picked up, there are still all of the
chipping areas—big or small, they are present. In these areas a person should find broken arrowheads
that were damaged while being made. Then we should also find the flakes, slabs, and chips in the
various work areas that can be seen throughout the plowed parts. [So does he find the flakes, etc., around the pond? He doesn't say, but it seems far more likely that people would be "making and sharpening tools" around a local pond than that they would do so during a rapid battle to the death.]

Before my first trip to Palmyra, I received the name from a friend of a Mr. J. Sheldon Fisher, who
lived in the small town of Fishers, about 10 miles southwest of the hill (he passed away in 2002). He
owned what is called the Valentown Museum. The museum barn has one floor devoted to early American artifacts; the second floor is full of all types of antiques. He was a great historian of the happenings down through time in that area. He supplied most of the early-1800s furniture used in the area’s visitors’ centers. There was an article about him in the 3 March 2001 Church News on his finds about an old Brigham Young home (Shaun D. Stahle, “Excavating Brigham Young’s mill site”). He worked as a professional archaeologist for the state of New York for over 30 years. So he knew what he was doing.

He said that he had a standing agreement with all of the bulldozer and backhoe people in the
county. They would call him when they were about to start jobs in the area. Many times, he said, “I’d
beat them to the site—I’d get there before they would.” He always watched the soil as they dug it or
pushed it around. But he never found any artifacts of any kind. [This could be useful information if we had a map of where these digs were. Oliver Cowdery said the final battles were in the valley 1 mile wide on the west of the Hill Cumorah. Mr. Fisher lived 10 miles away. Did he attend digs within the valley Oliver specified? We have no way of knowing, but every archaeologist knows you're not going to find a site unless you dig where it's supposed to be.]

I have spent evenings on both trips to Palmyra talking with him about the area and its history. His comment on my last trip was, “Oh, I hope this doesn’t shake your faith.” I answered, “No, it doesn’t. The Church is still true. The Book of Mormon is true. And those plates came out of that hill. ‘The battle’—well, it must have been at some other hill.” [This conclusion doesn't follow from this letter. It's not surprising that the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies published this--it's first-rate bias confirmation, so much so I'm surprised the Interpreter hasn't picked it up--but the report actually corroborates what Oliver wrote; i.e., the battle was not on the east or the north of the Hill Cumorah.]

Fun with Mesoamerican archaeology

The topic of Cumorah archaeology is one of the most fascinating aspects of the Book of Mormon wars. What I thought would be a chapter in the upcoming Moroni's History has become a separate manuscript to be published later this year.

This post introduces the topic by addressing some of the principal arguments made by the Mesoamerican seers regarding the connection between the text and archaeology.

In Mormon's Codex, p. 706, John Sorenson notes how modern Biblical archaeology is producing convergences and correspondences with the text of the Bible. Based on this, William Dever insists that Israel "must not be written out of history." Then Sorenson compares Biblical archaeology to the Book of Mormon:

"Archaeologist John Clark has pointed out a similar trend in the relationship between Mesoamerican archaeology and scholarship on the Book of Mormon: 'The trend over the last 50 years is one of convergence between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology. Book of Mormon claims [have] remain[ed] unaltered since 1830, so all the accommodation has been on the archaeology side.'30 This book carries that trend much further. Consequently, in the spirit of Dever, I maintain that 'the Nephites must not be written out of Mesoamerican history.'"

[Note 30 is John E. Clark, "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005): 49; and Clark, "Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origin," BYU Studies 44/4 (2005): 83-104.]

Brother Clark is often quoted by the citation cartel. You'll find quotations from him on FAIRMORMON. Brant Gardner includes 10 of his papers in his Bibliography in Traditions of the Fathers. I'll address Clark's work on Cumorah later, but for now I want to look at the claim Sorenson made in Mormon's Codex.

First he quotes Clark as saying that "The trend over the last 50 years is one of convergence between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology. Book of Mormon claims remain unaltered since 1830, so all the accommodation has been on the archaeology side."

Brother Clark seems to mean that the text has not changed since 1830 (presumably setting aside changes in punctuation, grammar, and terminology, as well as formatting*). If that's what he means, then I agree.

But when you read Clark's work (as well as the work of the Mesoamerican seers), you see that is not what he means at all, in two ways.

Text-based claims. "Book of Mormon claims" can refer to the text itself, but such claims are not self-executing. They are necessarily interpreted to one degree or another, particularly where they are vague (such as what the text means by "northward" or "narrow neck of land").

Context-based claims. "Book of Mormon claims" can also refer to claims made about the text. This includes the description of the plates, where Joseph found them, the box they were in, what the angel told Joseph, what he told others, etc.

In both senses, Book of Mormon claims, as viewed through the Mesoamerican lenses, have changed substantially since 1830.

In fact, to the extent there is "accommodation" between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology, it has all come from the expansion of the Mesoamerican theory.

Here's an example of a changed text-based claim. Nowhere does the text use the term "headwaters," but every Mesoamerican seer reads that term into the text. Why? Because the principal rivers in Mesoamerica flow northward, so the theory requires a river flowing north past Zarahemla. Of course, the text says no such thing. This is a new text-based claim that accommodates a particular geography. To say, as Clark and Sorenson do, that Mesoamerican archaeology is accommodating the text is exactly backward.

Other text-based claims, such as finding mountains throughout the text where they don't appear, assuming Joseph mistranslated animals and plants, imposing Mayan concepts of directions, etc., are all nothing but efforts by Mesoamerican seers to accommodate the archaeology. This flexible methodology would make it possible to fit the Book of Mormon just about anywhere in the world, into just about any culture.

Here's an example of a changed contextual claim. In 1830 (through at least 1842), it was universally understood that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah was in New York. This was published explicitly as a fact at least 3 times in Church newspapers and embraced by Joseph Smith, who had it copied directly into his personal journal. Now, Brothers Clark and Sorenson, as well as the rest of the citation cartel, insist the Hill Cumorah is not in New York. Clark writes, in direct opposition to Oliver Cowdery, that "the Cumorah of the golden plates is not the Cumorah of the final battles."

The reason given? Because of archaeology.

IOW, the findings of archaeology have led Mesoamerican seers to change course regarding this basic, previously unambiguous and universally accepted Book of Mormon claim.

To compound the problem, the Mesoamerican seers attack those who seek to retain--unaltered--the Book of Mormon claims that prevailed when it was first published.

All that said, it turns out there is an increasing accommodation, convergence, correspondence, etc., between archaeology and the Book of Mormon, but it's in North America, not Mesoamerica. If you're a Mesoamerican seer, or even a passive follower of the Mesoamerican theory, you're undoubtedly unaware of this archaeology. That's a topic for another day's post.
__________________

Back to Brother Sorenson's claim. After quoting Clark, he writes, "This book carries that trend much further."

If you read Mormon's Codex, you see that Brother Sorenson accurately describes his book. He definitely carries the trend of accommodation forward. For example, he famously writes, “There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd.”

So if you believe Oliver Cowdery, you're crazy.

Even more fun is his next sentence: “Hundreds of thousands of Nephites traipsing across the Mississippi Valley to New York, pursued (why?) by hundreds of thousands of Lamanites, is a scenario worthy only of a witless sci-fi movie, not of history.”

This is a classic straw man fallacy. First, he insists the Nephites lived in Mesoamerica. Then he points out it is foolish to believe they "traipsed" from Mesoamerica to New York. But no one (apart from Goble and maybe some other individuals) seriously advocates such a scenario.

Setting aside Brother Sorenson's phony straw man argument, we have an either/or question. Either you accept the New York Cumorah, or you accept a Mesoamerican Cumorah. If you accept a Mesoamerican Cumorah, then you have to adjust Book of Mormon claims, both text-based and context-based, to accommodate your theory. However, if you accept the New York Cumorah, you don't have to adjust either the text or the context.

Pretty simple, really.

Now, finally, Brother Sorenson writes, "Consequently, in the spirit of Dever, I maintain that 'the Nephites must not be written out of Mesoamerican history."

I suspect he smiled when he wrote that, because surely he knows he's writing the Nephites into Mesoamerican history. That history, as the Mesoamerican seers frequently remind us, is well documented in the monuments and paintings. Experts can read the language. They know the names and dates of the kings, the extent of the kingdoms, the kinds of trading they engaged in, etc. And yet, they have never found the Nephites there. You can't write something out if it's not there to begin with.

*As an aside, the recent publication of the Printer's Manuscript pretty well disposes of the anti-Mormon complaints about changes in the text. We're fine with the earliest manuscript--in fact, many of us prefer it to the one currently being published.

Fun with lenses

The "fun" series looks at what happens when people read the Book of Mormon through the Mesoamerican lens and "can't unsee" Mesoamerica as a result. Some join the citation cartel and suppress alternative views.

I'm happy for those whose testimonies of the Book of Mormon are solid regardless of the physical evidence, the geography, etc. I'm also happy for those whose testimonies are stronger because of their belief in the Mesoamerican theory. But many people have different spiritual gifts and are not satisfied by that theory. They need--and even more, they deserve--a fact-based alternative that supports what Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer said and wrote. It is for them that I write this blog.

Obviously, everyone wears lenses of one sort or another; it takes real effort to remove the ones you're used to and try on different eyeglasses.

People ask me all the time about anti-Mormon, former Mormon, atheist, evangelical and other arguments against the Church and religion in general. Those are all lenses through which people see the world. I've addressed some of those, and will publish more about that eventually, but in my view, it's a futile endeavor to respond to critics when people within the Church can't even agree on such a basic point as the location of the Hill Cumorah.

Certainly there can be differences of opinion about how to interpret facts, but there is no excuse for ignoring facts. As I unpack the Mesoamerican arguments, I hope to encourage everyone to take a fresh look at all the facts, and then draw reasonable inferences from them. Through this process, greater unity may develop.

When I wore the Mesoamerican lenses, especially as they were crafted by my education at BYU and by reading FARMS, etc., I thought I was seeing the text more clearly, but in retrospect, it was an illusion. I found myself reading into the text things that weren't there, such as headwaters, tapirs, a north-flowing Sidon, etc. I was seeing "correspondences" between Nephite and Mayan cultures that were actually common human activities found in many cultures from around the world. Some time ago I removed the Mesoamerican lenses, and now the text is far clearer and more meaningful to me. Best of all, the North American setting reconciles Church history, the text, and the sciences.

So if you're wearing Mesoamerican lenses and you're happy, fine. But if you're a participate in the citation cartel, please stop ignoring, distorting and suppressing important facts about Church history and North American archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc. Please stop writing logical fallacies. Please correct the errors I point out in this blog. And most of all, please allow everyone, Church members, former members, investigators, and those who know nothing about the Book of Mormon, to have access to the North American alternative to the Mesoamerican theory.

I think that's a far healthier approach than trying to put Mesoamerican lenses on everyone.

Fun with Cumorah

In this installment of my "fun" series, we'll look at the Hill Cumorah. The basic question is, "Where is the Hill Cumorah?"

This requires a lot of unpacking of rhetorical baggage, but I think it's important to get to the bottom of the Mesoamerican theory. This kind of unpacking takes time and attention, which may be why no one has apparently done it in the past, but I'm tired of seeing the Mesoamerican nonsense slide by unexamined, and I think most readers of this blog are too.

One advantage of the citation cartel's approach is that every source you consult leads to the others; i.e., FARMS will lead to the Interpreter, which leads to the Maxwell Institute, which leads to BYU Studies, which leads to FAIRMORMON, which leads to BMAF, etc. They're interchangeable, and they're all listed as links on the bottom of the BOMC web page here. (Okay, I think BYU Studies is a cut above the others, but so far I've never seen an article in BYU Studies that offers any alternative to the Mesoamerican theory. If I've missed such an article, please send me the citation.)

I'll start with the FAIRMORMON entry because it epitomizes the "Mesoamerican seer" approach. Then I'll look at some other Mesoamerican seers.

Question: Where is the Hill Cumorah?

Joseph Smith never used the name "Cumorah" in his own writings when referring to the gold plates' resting place [classic example of begging the question; i.e., providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise]

It is not clear exactly when the New York hill from which Joseph Smith retrieved the gold plates became associated with the name "Cumorah." Joseph Smith never used the name in his own writings when referring to the plates' resting place. [Notice the term "own writings" here. Joseph wrote very little himself. He relied on scribes. When Oliver Cowdery wrote Letters VII and VIII to W.W. Phelps (the letters in which he specifically stated, as a fact, that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place in the valley west of the Hill Cumorah in New York), he said Joseph helped him write the letters. Joseph instructed his scribes to copy these letters into his own journal as part of his life story. When viewed through the Mesoamerican lenses, Joseph's own journal is not "his own writings."] The only use of it from his pen seems to be D&C 128:20, which uses the phrase "Glad tidings from Cumorah!" [Think about this. Letter VII, which unequivocally identifies the Book of Mormon Cumorah as the New York hill, had been published in the Messenger and Advocate (1835), copied into Joseph's personal journal (1835), republished in the Gospel Reflector (1841) and the Times and Seasons (1841), and included in Orson Pratt's 1840 missionary pamphlet which Joseph adapted for the Wentworth letter, including the Articles of Faith, in March 1842. The Mesoamerican seers are blind to all of this context, and instead claim that D&C 128, written just six months after the Wentworth letter, cites Cumorah as an abstract concept. Worse, they insist Joseph was not referring to the gold plates' resting place, in direct contradiction to Letter VII. Later I'll show where some Mesoamerican seers actually claim Joseph was paying homage to a hill in Mesoamerica.] 

In 1830, Oliver Cowdery referred to the records' location as "Cumorah," while preaching to the Delaware Indians, and by 1835 the term seems to have been in common use among Church members.^[1] 

^{[The article doesn't mention that, according to his mother, Joseph used the term Cumorah in 1827, before he even translated the plates.}

"As I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel met me, and said that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord..."

Let's recap this paragraph. First, it's "not clear exactly when" the New York hill became associated with the name Cumorah, but by the end of the paragraph, we see Oliver Cowdery using it in 1830 during his mission to the Lamanites (also notice how the article avoids using the term Lamanites here, as it is used in the revelation calling Oliver on this mission). So while it is "not clear" when the term was first used, it is clear it was being used by Oliver Cowdery within a year of the publication of the text. Ordinarily, one would think Oliver Cowdery was a reliable source, but not if you're wearing the Mesoamerican lenses. And those lenses prevent you from even mentioning Joseph's use of the term in 1827.]

David Whitmer is not told that the hill from which Joseph received the record was called Cumorah, but this usage seems to have nevertheless become common within the Church [Nevertheless? One of the Three Witnesses explains when he first heard the term Cumorah--from a heavenly messenger, before he had even read the manuscript--and the Mesoamerican seers think it is a contradiction that the term "became common" within the Church?]

One reference comes from a later interview [This is hardly an ordinary interview. It was Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt interviewing one of the Three Witnesses for a formal report to the First Presidency.] with David Whitmer, who recounted how Oliver Cowdery had written to him, asking for help to transport Joseph and Oliver from Harmony to the Peter Whitmer home in Fayette:

When I was returning to Fayette, with Joseph and Oliver, all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old-fashioned, wooden, spring seat and Joseph behind us; while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon and saluted us with, "Good morning, it is very warm," at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and, by a sign from Joseph, I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, "No, I am going to Cumorah." This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked around inquiringly of Joseph, the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again.^[2]

Interestingly, Whitmer is not told that the hill from which Joseph received the record was called Cumorah, [Notice this rhetorical trick. We don't know what Whitmer was told by the messenger; we only know what he related in this interview as reported by Smith and Pratt. Whitmer also did an interview with Edward Stevenson, who recorded that "David asked him [the messenger] to ride and he replied I am going across to the hill Cumorah." FAIRMORMON is aware of this interview (they cite a different portion of it here), but somehow failed to mention it here. Any guesses why? You can see Stevenson's original letter describing one of his interviews here. Unfortunately, and inexplicably, Stevenson's diary containing the Whitmer's hill Cumorah statement is "closed to research" online (see here), but it is cited in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews, 1993, p. 13 and Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 2003, vol. v, p. 30.] but this usage seems to have nevertheless become common within the Church. [I love this "nevertheless" qualifier. Before the translation is even complete, and almost a year before the Book of Mormon is published, an angel tells David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Joseph Smith that he is taking the plates "to the hill Cumorah." Inexplicably, according to the Mesoamerican seers, "this usage" becomes "common within the Church." Such rhetorical audacity is a lot of fun to observe.] Given that Whitmer's reminiscence is late, and unsubstantiated by other contemporaneous accounts, some historians question its accuracy, especially in a detail such as the name of the Hill, which later became common Church usage.^[3]

[Okay, so now, when viewed through the Mesoamerican lens, official testimony, given to two Apostles, by one of the Three Witnesses, is questionable. No wonder why Joseph Fielding Smith said that, because of the Mesoamerican Two Cumorah theory, "some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon."

The FAIRMORMON article refers to "some historians" but cites only one, here. Martin Raish writes, "Unfortunately, the accuracy of David’s story is uncertain. For one thing, this recollection came 49 years later, when he was in his seventies. Moreover, it is not corroborated by any other early account. For example, neither Oliver Cowdery’s 1835 description of the hill nor Joseph Smith’s 1838 history of the church refers to the site by the name Cumorah (see Joseph Smith—History 1:51). For these reasons, some scholars do not accept the account as historically reliable." 

There are several fun aspects of Raish's piece. For example, he refutes the Mesoamerican seers' assertion that Cumorah was a folk tradition when he writes, "it apparently did not become part of common usage, even among Latter-day Saints, until many years later. Throughout the 1830s and ’40s, the mount, if named at all, was called “Mormon Hill,” “Bible Hill,” or “Golden Bible Hill.”

The most fun in Raish's piece, though, is when he claims Oliver Cowdery's 1835 description does not refer to the site by the name Cumorah. If you look at his article, he quotes from Letter VII, concluding with this sentence: "here, between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed."

But in the very next sentence in Letter VII, Oliver writes, "By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the Book of Mormon, you will read Mormon's account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped around this hill Cumorah."

Did Raish not read the next sentence in Letter VII? Was he using an extract of Letter VII from another Mesoamerican seer's work that omitted every reference to Cumorah? 

Raish's article was published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, a hopelessly Mesoamerican publication like the others in the citation cartel. Like the Interpreter, these publications are not peer reviewed, which is why errors such as this crop up. The citation cartel publishes peer-approved, not peer-reviewed, material.  

To sum up, the one scholar cited by FAIRMORMON didn't even read his original source, and therefore misrepresented what Oliver Cowdery wrote. 

Note: I previously addressed the David Whitmer issue in more detail here.]

The Book of Mormon text indicates that the Hill Cumorah in which the Nephite records were hidden is not the same location as the one where Moroni hid his plates

Despite this early "identification" of the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon with the hill in New York, readers who studied the text closely would later conclude that they could not be the same. [This is a variation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy; i.e., if you don't reach the same conclusion as the Mesoamerican seers, you are not "studying the text closely." It's a lot of fun to have these Mesoamerican seers inform us that Oliver Cowdery did not "study the text closely." Nor did Joseph Fielding Smith. When you encounter the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which you see a lot among the citation cartel, you can ignore the argument because people resort to that fallacy as a last resort when they have nothing of substance to say.]

In 1937–1939 Washburn and Washburn argued that the Nephite/Jaredite final battles at the Hill Cumorah were near the narrow neck of land, and thus unlikely to be in New York.^[4] [See how fun this is? First, the Mesoamerican seers decide the "narrow neck of land" is in Mesoamerica; then they argue that the Hill Cumorah can't be in New York because it's close to the narrow neck of land! Do I really need to explain the fallacy of this argument?] Thomas Ferguson was of the same view in 1947,^[5]and Sidney Sperry came down on the side of a Middle America location in a 1964 BYU religion class,^[6] though he had previously endorsed a New York location.^[7]  [The formal term for this fallacy is "appeal to authority," and it is among the most common fallacies you see in the citation cartel. Anyone interested can unpack the arguments made by Ferguson and Sperry; I find appeals to authority not worth the time and effort. Note that this fallacy is a different argument than an appeal to authority based on special credibility, such as a witness (which is why we publish the testimony of Joseph Smith and the 3 and 8 witnesses in every edition of the text). The appeal to authority fallacy applies when the cited authority has no more unique knowledge or expertise than anyone else. Any member of the Church can assess the same evidence that Ferguson and Sperry did and make up his/her own mind. There is zero reason to defer to them on this issue (or any other member of the citation cartel).]

Since the 1950s, opinion among Book of Mormon scholars has increasingly trended toward the realization that the Nephite Cumorah and the Hill in New York cannot be the same [The only thing more fun than an appeal to authority is an additional appeal to authority. This one is cleverly worded. Scholars are converging on the realization! It's no longer a matter of opinion, fact and analysis; it's a question of realizing the truth. IOW, if you disagree with these scholars, you just haven't realized that you're wrong. Another fun aspect of this one is "Book of Mormon scholars." The term, as used here, means "Mesoamerican seers." In my view, every member of the Church is, or can be, a Book of Mormon scholar. You certainly don't need a PhD, or any degree, to be a Book of Mormon scholar. In fact, once you put on the Mesoamerican lenses, you "can't unsee" Mesoamerica. Such closed-mindedness is the antithesis of scholarship.] 

Since the 1950s, opinion among Book of Mormon scholars has increasingly trended toward the realization that the Nephite Cumorah and the Hill in New York cannot be the same.^[8] Elder Dallin H. Oaks recalled his own experience at BYU:

Here [at BYU] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise.^[9]

[If I had to pick out my favorite fallacy in this FAIRMORMON article, I think this would be the one. Nothing in Elder Oak's statement endorses Mesoamerica. In fact, if you combine Elder Oaks with Joseph Fielding Smith, the statement excludes Mesoamerica. 

The whole geography issue boils down to this: you have to choose between the New York Cumorah and the Mesoamerican Zarahemla. You can't have both. Which means choosing between Joseph, Oliver and Whitmer on Cumorah vs. an anonymous and isolated 1842 article in the Times and Seasons on Zarahemla. 

Here's another way to put it. I invite every member of the Church to choose between these.

Explicit descriptions of Cumorah in New York:

Joseph (1827)

David Whitmer (1829)

Oliver Cowdery (1830)

Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII (1835), reprinted in Joseph's personal journal (1835), Orson Pratt (1840), the Gospel Reflector (1841), the Times and Seasons (1841), D&C 128 (1842), and the UK pamphlet (1844).

Explicit description of Zarahemla in Guatemala:

Anonymous article in the 1842 Times and Seasons, never mentioned or referred to again until the development of the two-Cumorah theory by scholars in the 1900s.

  

There are 13 geographical conditions required for the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah [This section is a classic in the canon of the citation cartel. Palmer wrote a book titled "In Search of Cumorah" in 1981. I bought a copy when it came out. Palmer also wrote the self-serving entry on Cumorah in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. He is cited by most Mesoamerican seers, so I'll address this here. You're going to love the "conditions" that are "required" by the Mesoamerican seers here. I'm not going through them in detail, just enough to give you the flavor.]

In 1981, Palmer identified 13 geographical conditions required for the Book of Mormon Hill Ramah/Cumorah:

1. near eastern seacoast [the text specifies no distance between Ramah/Cumorah and the sea]
2. near narrow neck of land [the text specifies no distance between Ramah/Cumorah and the narrow neck of land (and notice that the Nephites never mention the narrow neck of land; it is found only in Ether 10:20)]
3. on a coastal plain and near other mountains and valleys
4. one day's journey south of a large body of water
5. an area of many rivers and waters
6. presence of fountains
7. water gives military advantage
8. an escape route southward
9. hill large enough to view hundreds of thousands of bodies [The text doesn't require this, but in fact, from the top of the Hill Cumorah, you can see the city of Rochester 20 miles away. Oliver Cowdery refers to tens of thousands, which is consistent with the text. Certainly the mile-wide valley west of Cumorah, which Oliver identified as the scene of the final battle, is plenty big to accommodate this number of dead.] 
10. hill must be a significant landmark [just as Oliver described it]
11. hill must be free standing so people can camp around it [as the New York hill is]
12. in temperate climate with no cold or snow [complete fabrication, the product of the Mesoamerican lenses. Nothing in the text requires this. The climate is never described in the text, except it had "some seasons," which excludes Mesoamerica anyway. This common Mesoamerican argument is like saying the Apostle Paul could not have traveled in Turkey because he never mentions snow. Yet snow in Turkey is well known; I've been in a snowstorm in Turkey where Paul traveled.]
13. in a volcanic zone susceptible to earthquakes^[10] [another complete fabrication that defies the text. See my post on fun with volcanoes]

Clearly, the placement of Cumorah will greatly affect the map which results. Issues of distance, as discussed above, play a role here as well. [yes]

Some authors [Note the diminutive; these are not "Book of Mormon scholars" now] who have other views on the internal geography have directly disputed the validity of some of David Palmer's criteria for the ancient Cumorah.^[11] [Here, they cite Andrew Hedges and Edwin Goble. Goble advocates a Mesoamerican setting for Zarahemla. Hedges does an excellent job pointing out how Palmer's conditions are not required, or even implied, by the text, and so far as I know, he demurs on the location of Zarahemla, but like Goble, he does not reject the Mesoamerican setting. IOW, the "skeptics" FAIRMORMON cites here both accommodate the Mesoamerican setting!] The question of distance plays an important role in the skeptical views towards these criteria. [Notice how they rhetorically shift the burden of proof here. Palmer's conditions are "required." If you disagree, you're the skeptic.] If it is demonstrated [This passive voice leaves the analysis vacant. Who would be doing the demonstrating? On what criteria?] that there is a greater distance between the narrow neck of land and Cumorah, for example, and there is a "northern hinterland" to the Nephite domain, then the questions of climate and so forth in these criteria are not going to apply necessarily to the hill Cumorah. Furthermore, the issues of height have been called into question as well. [What can anyone say in response to this vacuous rhetoric?]

[Bottom line on Palmer: his fabricated "conditions" are "required" only if you are wearing the Mesoamerican lenses. You don't get them from the text Joseph translated. Citations to Palmer are ubiquitous in citation cartel literature, from John Sorenson's 1985 An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon through Brant Gardner's 2015 Traditions of the Fathers. But when you unpack Palmer's arguments, you see they are transparently designed to justify a Mesoamerican Cumorah. 

Truly, once you put on the Mesoamerican lenses, you can't unsee Mesoamerica. This FAIRMORMON article is a prime example of how the Mesoamerican seers adapt the evidence to confirm their biases, and why it is necessary to unpack their work piece by piece.

This post is too long now, so I'll save the rest on Cumorah for a separate post.

The "fun" series

This "fun" series examines the "can't unsee" problem with the Mesoamerican theory. It comes from this quotation: “Once you start looking at the Book of Mormon through a Mesoamerican lens, you can’t unsee it.”

To say you "can't unsee" something is equivalent to saying you can only see one thing; i.e., admitting you don't have an open mind. Consequently, this lens is causing a serious problem. Many analogies come to mind. Think of the Lord of the Rings movies, when the wearer of the Ring is portrayed as "moving through a shadowy realm where everything is distorted." That's what the Mesoamerican lens (or lenses, spectacles, etc.) does to those who look through it. It turns them into Mesoamerican "seers."

The Church is officially neutral on the question of Book of Mormon geography--a wise and appropriate position.

The problem is that the Mesoamerican seers dominate LDS scholarship and publications and media and institutions, including CES, BYU, etc. They carefully fit the lenses on their students, starting in Primary, so that by the time students reach college and beyond, many of them, too, "can't unsee" Mesoamerica. But when an event yanks off the Mesoamerican spectacles--such as an encounter with an Internet page, a skeptical investigator, a former Mormon--the fallacies of the Mesoamerican theory become apparent. Having never been taught, or even exposed to, an alternative to the Mesoamerican setting, unsuspecting but once-faithful members too often jettison the Book of Mormon along with the Mesoamerican theory.

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe, in the spirit of Article of Faith 11. My problem is the Orwellian suppression of alternative views by LDS scholars. They deprive their readers, hearers, and students of the opportunity to make an informed choice about what to believe regarding Book of Mormon geography and historicity.

To understand why, it's helpful to look at how the Mesoamerican lenses operate. They turn wearers into "seers" who

1) see Mesoamerican terms in the text that are invisible to those not wearing the lenses (which leads to them using the Sorenson and other translations of the text instead of Joseph's translation);

2) are unable to see any evidence that contradicts their theories (the Mesoamerican lenses blind the wearer);

3) interpret Church history to cast doubt on the Three Witnesses and other important statements;

4) use rhetorical sleight of hand and logical fallacies to perpetuate their theories;

5) participate in a citation cartel that excludes both consideration and exposure of facts and analysis that contradict their theories.

The primary purpose of this blog is to help Mesoamerican seers remove their spectacles for a moment and take a look at the text Joseph dictated and Oliver wrote down, in light of other things these two men said, and then compare that text to actual archaeology, anthropology, geography, geology, etc. 

There is tremendous resistance to this approach; those scholars who wear the Mesoamerican lenses have great difficulty removing them. I'm beginning to suspect that, in some cases, they are unable to do so. 

Nevertheless, they need to try. There are many terms for this process, including an open mind, intellectual honesty, the scientific method, a robust exchange of ideas, etc. Any scientist who is confident of his/her own theory is eager to share it with the world and test it in every way possible--and trust others to do the same. 

Let's break up the citation cartel and trust faithful LDS people with alternatives to the Mesoamerican model.

_____________

Some of my favorite quotations on open mindedness that are relevant to the "can't unsee" problem:

“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.” 

― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.” 

― Isaac Asimov

“It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view.” 

― George Eliot, Middlemarch

“It is never too late to give up your prejudices” 

― Henry David Thoreau