A Fictional Book Of Mormon?

[Bill Hamblin]

See my musings here.

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/the-book-of-mormon-as-inspired-fiction/

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Technically, one might follow some fundamentalist evangelicals and say that there really was some sort of manifestation, but that it was inspired by the devil posing as an Angel of Light. "Moroni" and the plates might therefore be real, but the personage would be a liar and the plates would be fiction; Smith would then be sincere and clear-minded and sane and yet still fooled, truly believing he was a prophet while in fact being ... not.

Bummer!

But other than that, I agree that the BoM's historicity is a real question, and I think there is enough in it to show some genuine antiquity, even if it's been quadruple-filtered through the cultural and linguistic lenses of the Ancient Near East, Mesoamerica, 19th-century New England, and our present day.

(I think the parable is 101, not 104)

[Bill Hamblin]

Technically, one might follow some fundamentalist evangelicals and say that there really was some sort of manifestation, but that it was inspired by the devil posing as an Angel of Light. "Moroni" and the plates might therefore be real, but the personage would be a liar and the plates would be fiction; Smith would then be sincere and clear-minded and sane and yet still fooled, truly believing he was a prophet while in fact being ... not.

Bummer!

But other than that, I agree that the BoM's historicity is a real question, and I think there is enough in it to show some genuine antiquity, even if it's been quadruple-filtered through the cultural and linguistic lenses of the Ancient Near East, Mesoamerica, 19th-century New England, and our present day.

(I think the parable is 101, not 104)

Very true.

[zerinus]

See my musings here.

http://mormonscriptu...spired-fiction/

I agree that the "fictional Book of Mormon is logically untenable . . ." as you have have stated in your blog. But I have two questions: Firstly, how many Church members do you think there are who have that problem? I don't think there are too many among active members. Secondly, what do you think there should be done about them? Do you think they should be exed? Do you think they should be put in a concentration camp? Any other solutions? I personally don't think that they do a lot of harm; and eventually they either will come round to believing as the rest of the Church does, or find their faith in something else. Interestingly, I think there are some LDS "scholars" who have that problem, including some who post here. Their papers and articles are written from that mental perspective (although they may try to hide it). If anybody is going to do any harm, it is more likely to be them than anybody else.

[Nemesis]

I agree that the "fictional Book of Mormon is logically untenable . . ." as you have have stated in your blog. But I have two questions: Firstly, how many Church members do you think there are who have that problem? I don't think there are too many among active members. Secondly, what do you think there should be done about them? Do you think they should be exed? Do you think they should be put in a concentration camp? Any other solutions? I personally don't think that they do a lot of harm; and eventually they either will come round to believing as the rest of the Church does, or find their faith in something else. Interestingly, I think there are some LDS "scholars" who have that problem, including some who post here. Their papers and articles are written from that mental perspective (although they may try to hide it). If anybody is going to do any harm, it is more likely to be them than anybody else.

You really need to stop being so insulting to everyone. Take some time off.

Nemesis

[Benjamin McGuire]

In reading through Dr. Hamblin's comments, I had a few thoughts.

First, I think that when we discuss this idea of inspired fiction (and I should note that I happen to agree with Dr. Hamblin), that we need to point out that at least for believers this is the far end of a spectrum. The other end is also problematic - that is, that the text is in some way an absolutely perfect historical account - everything in it is exactly accurate, and if things are left out, they were utterly inconsequential. Such a view is also incoherent (although I suspect it is much more acceptable within the LDS community).

Second, I was reminded by Dr. Habmblin's comments of a topic I haven't thought much about in a while, but which has intrigued me in the past - the application of Speech Act Theory to the Book of Mormon. A locutionary act is the act of saying something (or writing something). The illocutionary act is the action we take when we make the locutionary act. The Book of Mormon is presented to us as both a locutionary act (the text), and an illocutionary act (the invitation perhaps to come to Christ and to embrace His gospel). And here a distinction between fiction and non-fiction is much clearer. Wadsworth can write (as he did in 1802) "England hath need of thee: she is a fen". Perhaps, were this in some way a historical record, we might see Wadsworth committing an illocutionary act in which he is castigating England. But in fact, given what he is writing, we see that Wadsworth is only representing the castigation of England, he isn't actually doing it. The problem with reading the Book of Mormon as fiction is this double separation. In order to read the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction (in some way) to maintain its illocutionary action, we have to ignore this double separation. That is, we have to pretend that the people are all real, that it is a real history, and that the events in its pages really happened. If we don't, it becomes an awful lot like reading Cinderella, and finding a young woman who is a paranoid, delusional, psychotic, experiencing severe hallucinations (after all, faeries don't exist, magic doesn't exist, and we might question the happily ever after ....). Read as fiction, the Book of Mormon doesn't invite us to come to Christ, it merely represents an invitation to come to Christ. And while this is perhaps just another way of explaining what Dr. Hamblin did so elequently, such a text - such a speech act will never have the illocutionary power of a single simple testimony given in church.

Third, we need to remember that all texts are in some ways fictional. This is not the same sort of fiction that is meant when we talk about the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. What I mean is that texts never really portray reality with some complete accuracy. Auto-biographies always portray something not quite reality. We don't want to display our deepest embarrassments, our greatest weaknesses (and no account which focused on such things would be accurate in any case). Our omissions should we write about ourselves (conscious or unconscious) will always give the reader a perspective that isn't really true (even if everything we write is completely accurate). A completely factual text can and inevitably will result in multiple interpretations - all of which cannot be the truth (however we define it). Our problem isn't so much the debate over what is true or false, or historically accurate or inaccurate, it is our assumption that what is historically accurate must be true, and what is historically inaccurate must be false. Such standards we cannot even apply to ourselves.

Personally, I am not one to push off those who find belief in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. I think that if this helps them deal with other contradictions they encounter, and keeps them as active participants in the gospel, then it is a good thing. I don't find it very compelling for myself. For me, the scriptures play a key role in my remaining engaged in the gospel - and to give them the power to transform me - to change me into something better, I need to see them as more than a mere portrayal of something that may or may not be real. Finally, I think that those who take this stance are themselves still walking down the middle of the road. They have managed for a time to push back problems that they see with inconsistencies or disagreements. But this isn't a permanent solution - it causes new conflict in other places. Perhaps reading the Book of Mormon as a historical record does as well - and maybe the gospel isn't given to us to provide a static resting place. Maybe the only real certainty the gospel can bring is the certainty of atonement and sanctification in Jesus Christ.

Ben M.

[ldsboy]

You're absolutely right, Joseph Smith wasn't liar or lunatic, he was a prophet of our God, in his own words:

I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 368. Also cited by Apostle Neil A. Maxwell, “How Choice a Seer!” Ensign (Conference Edition), November, 2003, 100).

[CV75]

See my musings here.

http://mormonscriptu...spired-fiction/

I think it important to distinguish and separate what we believe from what we have faith in. We can have misplaced belief and at the same time enjoy on-target faith.

The Book of Mormon is true, so faith in it can do no harm and in my opinion surpasses any correct or incorrect unbelief one has about it. I think everyone lacks some imperfect understanding and belief about it, but those that have faith in it cannot help but “get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

When people confuse their belief with faith, they can easily get into additional trouble by defending or promulgating that a belief. Contention is of the devil (“And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance” -- 2 Nephi 28:4), but when the object of faith is conveyed “by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth… he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.” (D&C 50: 17-22).

Discernment can help us know the difference between what we believe and what we have faith in, and we can watch ourselves accordingly (“Pray always, that ye may not faint” -- D&C 88:126)

Edited August 16, 2012 by CV75

[Verum]

Either way, the only intellectually honest and coherent conclusion is that Joseph Smith was not an authentic prophet. The only remaining choices are liar or lunatic.

Well, I guess have no choice but to drop the "inspired" from my "inspired fiction" belief then....

In all seriousness, I think some would say that God did not "inpsire" Joseph to lie to the saints. Perhaps it was always intended as a parable and Joseph wasn't aware that it was, yet allowing Joseph to believe in its historical authenticity was perhaps the most effective way for God to communicate to Joseph and treat the contents of what was being revealed seriously. It's sort of similar to his failed secular translation of the Book of Abraham which some believe God used as an effective way for Joseph to reveal profound principles even though the actual papyri may not have contained those words.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Verum

[Bill Hamblin]

In reading through Dr. Hamblin's comments, I had a few thoughts.

First, I think that when we discuss this idea of inspired fiction (and I should note that I happen to agree with Dr. Hamblin), that we need to point out that at least for believers this is the far end of a spectrum. The other end is also problematic - that is, that the text is in some way an absolutely perfect historical account - everything in it is exactly accurate, and if things are left out, they were utterly inconsequential. Such a view is also incoherent (although I suspect it is much more acceptable within the LDS community).

Second, I was reminded by Dr. Habmblin's comments of a topic I haven't thought much about in a while, but which has intrigued me in the past - the application of Speech Act Theory to the Book of Mormon. A locutionary act is the act of saying something (or writing something). The illocutionary act is the action we take when we make the locutionary act. The Book of Mormon is presented to us as both a locutionary act (the text), and an illocutionary act (the invitation perhaps to come to Christ and to embrace His gospel). And here a distinction between fiction and non-fiction is much clearer. Wadsworth can write (as he did in 1802) "England hath need of thee: she is a fen". Perhaps, were this in some way a historical record, we might see Wadsworth committing an illocutionary act in which he is castigating England. But in fact, given what he is writing, we see that Wadsworth is only representing the castigation of England, he isn't actually doing it. The problem with reading the Book of Mormon as fiction is this double separation. In order to read the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction (in some way) to maintain its illocutionary action, we have to ignore this double separation. That is, we have to pretend that the people are all real, that it is a real history, and that the events in its pages really happened. If we don't, it becomes an awful lot like reading Cinderella, and finding a young woman who is a paranoid, delusional, psychotic, experiencing severe hallucinations (after all, faeries don't exist, magic doesn't exist, and we might question the happily ever after ....). Read as fiction, the Book of Mormon doesn't invite us to come to Christ, it merely represents an invitation to come to Christ. And while this is perhaps just another way of explaining what Dr. Hamblin did so elequently, such a text - such a speech act will never have the illocutionary power of a single simple testimony given in church.

Third, we need to remember that all texts are in some ways fictional. This is not the same sort of fiction that is meant when we talk about the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. What I mean is that texts never really portray reality with some complete accuracy. Auto-biographies always portray something not quite reality. We don't want to display our deepest embarrassments, our greatest weaknesses (and no account which focused on such things would be accurate in any case). Our omissions should we write about ourselves (conscious or unconscious) will always give the reader a perspective that isn't really true (even if everything we write is completely accurate). A completely factual text can and inevitably will result in multiple interpretations - all of which cannot be the truth (however we define it). Our problem isn't so much the debate over what is true or false, or historically accurate or inaccurate, it is our assumption that what is historically accurate must be true, and what is historically inaccurate must be false. Such standards we cannot even apply to ourselves.

Personally, I am not one to push off those who find belief in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. I think that if this helps them deal with other contradictions they encounter, and keeps them as active participants in the gospel, then it is a good thing. I don't find it very compelling for myself. For me, the scriptures play a key role in my remaining engaged in the gospel - and to give them the power to transform me - to change me into something better, I need to see them as more than a mere portrayal of something that may or may not be real. Finally, I think that those who take this stance are themselves still walking down the middle of the road. They have managed for a time to push back problems that they see with inconsistencies or disagreements. But this isn't a permanent solution - it causes new conflict in other places. Perhaps reading the Book of Mormon as a historical record does as well - and maybe the gospel isn't given to us to provide a static resting place. Maybe the only real certainty the gospel can bring is the certainty of atonement and sanctification in Jesus Christ.

Ben M.

Ben has it exactly right again, as usual.

[Bill Hamblin]

Well, I guess have no choice but to drop the "inspired" from my "inspired fiction" belief then....

In all seriousness, I think some would say that God did not "inpsire" Joseph to lie to the saints. Perhaps it was always intended as a parable and Joseph wasn't aware that it was, yet allowing Joseph to believe in its historical authenticity was perhaps the most effective way for God to communicate to Joseph and treat the contents of what was being revealed seriously. It's sort of similar to his failed secular translation of the Book of Abraham which some believe God used as an effective way for Joseph to reveal profound principles even though the actual papyri may not have contained those words.

I see. God was able to reveal the Book of Mormon to JS, but forgot to tell him it was fiction.

[robuchan]

I mostly agree with Hamblin's points on the blog.

The best scenario I can come up with that makes the case for BOM as inspired fiction is something like this:

• There were no gold plates, no angels, no visions.
  
• Joseph Smith decided to create the BOM (with or without co-conspirators) and a new religion to go along with it
  
• God is the type of God who doesn't intervene that closely in human affairs and mostly lets us do our thing
  
• God foresaw Joseph Smith successfully creating a world religion and decided to nudge him along in a good direction, subtly inspiring some or all of the doctrines and contents of the BOM and the new religion he was creating.
  

I actually think I believe this to some degree.

[Tacenda]

I mostly agree with Hamblin's points on the blog.

The best scenario I can come up with that makes the case for BOM as inspired fiction is something like this:

• There were no gold plates, no angels, no visions.
  
• Joseph Smith decided to create the BOM (with or without co-conspirators) and a new religion to go along with it
  
• God is the type of God who doesn't intervene that closely in human affairs and mostly lets us do our thing
  
• God foresaw Joseph Smith successfully creating a world religion and decided to nudge him along in a good direction, subtly inspiring some or all of the doctrines and contents of the BOM and the new religion he was creating.
  

I actually think I believe this to some degree.

I see it too that Joseph Smith had spiritual gifts that he used in the process.

[CV75]

I don’t see how the Book of Mormon could be inspired fiction, as it would require too many other, supporting inspired fictions to sustain it, which formula or pattern values fiction over truth, or inexplicably transfigures fiction into truth. I don’t think there is any such thing as being fooled into faith and then on to perfect knowledge. A God of perfect integrity cannot do that.

We have plenty of examples of imitating inspired truth (a form of opposition to the truth). But imitating inspired fiction (or imitating an imitation of truth) for the sake of a truth does not allow for opposition in all things.

[Bart Burk]

See my musings here.

http://mormonscriptu...spired-fiction/

I read a little from the Book of Mormon everyday. Whatever it is it draws me closer to Christ. It's not hard for me to see it as a true story of some ancient mound builders in Western New York.

[cursor]

It's not hard for me to see it as a true story of some ancient mound builders in Western New York.

It's difficult for me to see that as a plausible location for the Book of Mormon events.

[Bart Burk]

It's difficult for me to see that as a plausible location for the Book of Mormon events.

Reading it as a text occurring in Mesoamerica caused me to question it. But when I accepted Cumorah was in New York and a New York setting, the prophecies, etc. made sense from that perspective. I was drawn back to it after that.

[Tacenda]

I read a little from the Book of Mormon everyday. Whatever it is it draws me closer to Christ. It's not hard for me to see it as a true story of some ancient mound builders in Western New York.

I'm kinda feelin' dumb here, so then do you not believe they lived in Mesoamerica? I've always believed it was in Western New York also, but the story now is the BOM takes place in Mesoamerica and Nephi carried the plates for 35 years to NY.

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Geography_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

[Bart Burk]

I'm kinda feelin' dumb here, so then do you not believe they lived in Mesoamerica? I've always believed it was in Western New York also, but the story now is the BOM takes place in Mesoamerica and Nephi carried the plates for 35 years to NY.

http://www.mormonwik..._Book_of_Mormon

It doesn't make any sense they lived in Mesoamerica since the prophecies apply to the U.S., not Latin America.

[cursor]

In 2007 John L. Sorenson wrote :

Reasons Why Book of Mormon Geography

Could Not Have Included North America

1. The “promised land” occupied by the Nephites was characterized for many centuries as an area of “civilization.” As indicated by archaeology and related studies, no place in North America in the period of Book of Mormon history contained any cultures at the level of “civilization.”

2. The population of areas of North America over much of the period of its history totaled from hundreds of thousands up to millions. The areas of North America touted as occupied by Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites cannot be shown from objective evidence to have been anywhere near that level.

3. Many “cities” and even “great” cities are reported by the Nephite record between 1500 BC and AD 400. Not a single such city has been documented in North America in that period.

4. Intensive agriculture is indicated as the economic means of support, according to the record. Agriculture only on a limited scale was employed by inhabitants of North America before AD 400.

5. Multiple kinds of grains were cultivated by the Nephites as their subsistence mainstay supporting large poplulations. In the Book of Mormon period, as far as is known, only limited grain crops of corn/maize were cultivated in North America.

6. “Flocks” and “herds” were raised at times by the Nephites and Jaredites. There is absolutely no evidence for any degree of animal husbandry in ancient North America.

7. Many major public buildings, many of them of a religious nature, are referred to in the scripture as characteristic of their settlements. In the Book of Mormon period there is no evidence of any major structures in North America.

8. Major wars were fought among Book of Mormon peoples for well over 1,000 years; they involved over hundreds of thousands of combatants. In North America in the relevant period there is no evidence of warfare on any significant scale.

9. Swords and “cimeters” (scimitars) are particularly referred to as weapons in the Book of Mormon period. Neither in archaeology or art are any such weapons identified in North American cultures.

10. Armor and shields also were in common use according to the record. Evidence for those features is also entirely lacking in North America before AD 400.

11. Large-scale fortifications (of particular types) are described as being used by Book of Mormon peoples, but those types, and in fact any such large-scale defensive structures, are unknown in North America in Book of Mormon times.

12. Roads and highways were described by the Nephite record as being built near the time of Christ. North American archaeology reveals nothing of the sort.

13. “Towers,” obviously tall, bulky structures of earth or stone, were features in some Book of Mormon cities. Such constructions were absent before AD 400 in North America.

14. People of Book of Mormon areas were frequently literate, in fact several scripts are reported. No North American cultures have been shown to have had any established system of writing whatsoever.

15. At least the Nephites are said to have possessed “many” books covering many subjects. No ancient North American books at all are evidenced.

16. The Nephites followed several different calendar systems. In North America even a single calendar is only uncertainly known.

17. According to the Nephite record several kinds of metals were worked in the original settlement areas (land of Nephi and Jaredite areas), and a significant body of metal specimens of that date has been found in Mesoamerica. No true metallurgy is evidenced in North America during the Book of Mormon era.

18. A substantial number of priests, prophets, and other occupational specialists (including “thousands” of idle people in the land of Zarahemla—Alma 60: 22) are mentioned. No more than a mere handful of (“idle”) people occupying specialist roles are in evidence in any ancient culture in North America.

19. There is no mention nor even hint of cold, snow or ice in the Book of Mormon account of its peoples. In the Great Lakes or Prairie regions winter storms are and were so common that it is unthinkable that they would not be a prominent mentioned feature of the climate.

20. It is obvious from the description of the great catastrophe at the crucifixion of the Savior that volcanism must be involved as a natural cause (of at least the “darkness”). In eastern North America that is out of the question; there are no volcanoes there.

21. The river Sidon is a major drainage feature that runs hundreds of miles from south to north from the highlands of the land of Nephi through the “narrow strip of wilderness” past Manti and Zarahemla to the sea. No river in North America even remotely qualifies.

22. The battle of Alma’s Nephite army on the riverbank (Alma 2) has them wade across the river Sidon to battle a combined Lamanite/Amlicite force. The idea of wading across the Mississippi is obviously absurd.

23. The Lehite party in their ship landed on the shore of the (west) sea in the “land of first inheritance” (Alma 22: 28). Any attempt to make that point anywhere but on the Pacific coast of North America requires fantastic twisting of the obvious meaning of the distances and other geographical language.

23. From the borders of the (immediate) land of Nephi to Zarahemla via the waters of Mormon, land of Helam and valley of Alma, took Alma’s party about 21 days. No plausible rate of travel can make that distance more than 250 miles. No suggested “Nephi” to “Zarahemla” distance in North America comes close to that.

24. The land of Zarahemla is said to be “nearly surrounded by water” (i.e., seas). No North American geography qualifies.

25. The land northward supported a population of millions (Ether 15: 2) in late Jaredite times. Not only is it manifestly absurd that any “land northward” around the Great Lakes, given the climatic conditions there, could have supported even one-hundredth as many people, but also the archaeology of that region shows only a tiny fraction of the history’s stated number ever to have dwelt there, let alone in Jaredite times when no one lived there but a few hunting tribes.

26. Book of Mormon references allow that the “narrow pass” or “narrow passage” between the lands northward and southward was within the narrow neck of land and constitute the sole feasible way for large parties to go northward/southward. No North American geographical arrangement comes close to such an arrangement.

27. The hill Ramah/Cumorah of the Book of Mormon lay north of the narrow pass/neck, yet the hill in New York state is not so situated.

28. King Limhi’s exploring party (sent from the land of Nephi to find Zarahemla) traversed the narrow neck/narrow pass without even realizing it, for they returned having been to the final Jaredite battleground (at hill Ramah) but supposed that they had only found the ruins of Zarahemla. Anywhere in North America this is impossible.

29. The kingdom dominated by the Lamanite king (Alma 22: 27) extended from east sea to the west sea. No North American correlation comes close to fitting with those conditions.

30. The hill Cumorah in New York could not plausibly have been a refuge for the 23 survivors of the final battle who were found atop it on the day after the great battle. Had they so much as sneezed their presence would have been detected by the Lamanites.

31. Had New York’s hill been the site of the final battle, the 230,000 Nephite dead (not to mention a large number of Lamanite dead—up to half a million total corpses) would have left behind over half a million weapons. Remains on any such scale would have become obvious long since to archaeologists. In fact no weapons of the right period have been found near the place.

32. The notion that Lehi’s party sailed around Africa and northward through the South and North Atlantic not only has no historical analogs whatever, but given the winds and currents, it was probably impossible in ancient times and has never been duplicated in modern times.

33. From the land of Nephi Mosiah led his party “down [across a mountainous narrow strip of wilderness] into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla” (distant no more than c. 200 miles; see 23 above). In North America, it is impossible to find such a place.

34. West of Zarahemla was the land of Melek (Alma 8: 3-6), “west by the borders of the wilderness.” (That wilderness was adjacent on one side to the land of Zarahemla {Alma 22: 28} and on the other to the west sea {Alma 22: 28}.) No North American area comes close to such an arrangement.

35. The Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from east [sea] unto the west sea, and thus had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south that they could occupy no lands farther north (Alma 22: 33). These statements are meaningless in North America.

36. The Nephites gathered all their people (nearly a quarter of a million of them) to the land of Cumorah (Mormon 6: 3-4) for their final battle. Anyone who has spent a winter in western New York, let alone four of them, must wonder how they survived in their tents and what so many people might have eaten (there is no mention of manna!)

37. Any attempt to put a land northward in, say, Ontario, must face the fact that there is no trace of anything approaching what the Book of Mormon represents as Jaredite or Nephite society in that area.

This could go on and on and on ….

[Tacenda]

In 2007 John L. Sorenson wrote :

Reasons Why Book of Mormon Geography

Could Not Have Included North America

1. The “promised land” occupied by the Nephites was characterized for many centuries as an area of “civilization.” As indicated by archaeology and related studies, no place in North America in the period of Book of Mormon history contained any cultures at the level of “civilization.”

2. The population of areas of North America over much of the period of its history totaled from hundreds of thousands up to millions. The areas of North America touted as occupied by Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites cannot be shown from objective evidence to have been anywhere near that level.

3. Many “cities” and even “great” cities are reported by the Nephite record between 1500 BC and AD 400. Not a single such city has been documented in North America in that period.

4. Intensive agriculture is indicated as the economic means of support, according to the record. Agriculture only on a limited scale was employed by inhabitants of North America before AD 400.

5. Multiple kinds of grains were cultivated by the Nephites as their subsistence mainstay supporting large poplulations. In the Book of Mormon period, as far as is known, only limited grain crops of corn/maize were cultivated in North America.

6. “Flocks” and “herds” were raised at times by the Nephites and Jaredites. There is absolutely no evidence for any degree of animal husbandry in ancient North America.

7. Many major public buildings, many of them of a religious nature, are referred to in the scripture as characteristic of their settlements. In the Book of Mormon period there is no evidence of any major structures in North America.

8. Major wars were fought among Book of Mormon peoples for well over 1,000 years; they involved over hundreds of thousands of combatants. In North America in the relevant period there is no evidence of warfare on any significant scale.

9. Swords and “cimeters” (scimitars) are particularly referred to as weapons in the Book of Mormon period. Neither in archaeology or art are any such weapons identified in North American cultures.

10. Armor and shields also were in common use according to the record. Evidence for those features is also entirely lacking in North America before AD 400.

11. Large-scale fortifications (of particular types) are described as being used by Book of Mormon peoples, but those types, and in fact any such large-scale defensive structures, are unknown in North America in Book of Mormon times.

12. Roads and highways were described by the Nephite record as being built near the time of Christ. North American archaeology reveals nothing of the sort.

13. “Towers,” obviously tall, bulky structures of earth or stone, were features in some Book of Mormon cities. Such constructions were absent before AD 400 in North America.

14. People of Book of Mormon areas were frequently literate, in fact several scripts are reported. No North American cultures have been shown to have had any established system of writing whatsoever.

15. At least the Nephites are said to have possessed “many” books covering many subjects. No ancient North American books at all are evidenced.

16. The Nephites followed several different calendar systems. In North America even a single calendar is only uncertainly known.

17. According to the Nephite record several kinds of metals were worked in the original settlement areas (land of Nephi and Jaredite areas), and a significant body of metal specimens of that date has been found in Mesoamerica. No true metallurgy is evidenced in North America during the Book of Mormon era.

18. A substantial number of priests, prophets, and other occupational specialists (including “thousands” of idle people in the land of Zarahemla—Alma 60: 22) are mentioned. No more than a mere handful of (“idle”) people occupying specialist roles are in evidence in any ancient culture in North America.

19. There is no mention nor even hint of cold, snow or ice in the Book of Mormon account of its peoples. In the Great Lakes or Prairie regions winter storms are and were so common that it is unthinkable that they would not be a prominent mentioned feature of the climate.

20. It is obvious from the description of the great catastrophe at the crucifixion of the Savior that volcanism must be involved as a natural cause (of at least the “darkness”). In eastern North America that is out of the question; there are no volcanoes there.

21. The river Sidon is a major drainage feature that runs hundreds of miles from south to north from the highlands of the land of Nephi through the “narrow strip of wilderness” past Manti and Zarahemla to the sea. No river in North America even remotely qualifies.

22. The battle of Alma’s Nephite army on the riverbank (Alma 2) has them wade across the river Sidon to battle a combined Lamanite/Amlicite force. The idea of wading across the Mississippi is obviously absurd.

23. The Lehite party in their ship landed on the shore of the (west) sea in the “land of first inheritance” (Alma 22: 28). Any attempt to make that point anywhere but on the Pacific coast of North America requires fantastic twisting of the obvious meaning of the distances and other geographical language.

23. From the borders of the (immediate) land of Nephi to Zarahemla via the waters of Mormon, land of Helam and valley of Alma, took Alma’s party about 21 days. No plausible rate of travel can make that distance more than 250 miles. No suggested “Nephi” to “Zarahemla” distance in North America comes close to that.

24. The land of Zarahemla is said to be “nearly surrounded by water” (i.e., seas). No North American geography qualifies.

25. The land northward supported a population of millions (Ether 15: 2) in late Jaredite times. Not only is it manifestly absurd that any “land northward” around the Great Lakes, given the climatic conditions there, could have supported even one-hundredth as many people, but also the archaeology of that region shows only a tiny fraction of the history’s stated number ever to have dwelt there, let alone in Jaredite times when no one lived there but a few hunting tribes.

26. Book of Mormon references allow that the “narrow pass” or “narrow passage” between the lands northward and southward was within the narrow neck of land and constitute the sole feasible way for large parties to go northward/southward. No North American geographical arrangement comes close to such an arrangement.

27. The hill Ramah/Cumorah of the Book of Mormon lay north of the narrow pass/neck, yet the hill in New York state is not so situated.

28. King Limhi’s exploring party (sent from the land of Nephi to find Zarahemla) traversed the narrow neck/narrow pass without even realizing it, for they returned having been to the final Jaredite battleground (at hill Ramah) but supposed that they had only found the ruins of Zarahemla. Anywhere in North America this is impossible.

29. The kingdom dominated by the Lamanite king (Alma 22: 27) extended from east sea to the west sea. No North American correlation comes close to fitting with those conditions.

30. The hill Cumorah in New York could not plausibly have been a refuge for the 23 survivors of the final battle who were found atop it on the day after the great battle. Had they so much as sneezed their presence would have been detected by the Lamanites.

31. Had New York’s hill been the site of the final battle, the 230,000 Nephite dead (not to mention a large number of Lamanite dead—up to half a million total corpses) would have left behind over half a million weapons. Remains on any such scale would have become obvious long since to archaeologists. In fact no weapons of the right period have been found near the place.

32. The notion that Lehi’s party sailed around Africa and northward through the South and North Atlantic not only has no historical analogs whatever, but given the winds and currents, it was probably impossible in ancient times and has never been duplicated in modern times.

33. From the land of Nephi Mosiah led his party “down [across a mountainous narrow strip of wilderness] into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla” (distant no more than c. 200 miles; see 23 above). In North America, it is impossible to find such a place.

34. West of Zarahemla was the land of Melek (Alma 8: 3-6), “west by the borders of the wilderness.” (That wilderness was adjacent on one side to the land of Zarahemla {Alma 22: 28} and on the other to the west sea {Alma 22: 28}.) No North American area comes close to such an arrangement.

35. The Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from east [sea] unto the west sea, and thus had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south that they could occupy no lands farther north (Alma 22: 33). These statements are meaningless in North America.

36. The Nephites gathered all their people (nearly a quarter of a million of them) to the land of Cumorah (Mormon 6: 3-4) for their final battle. Anyone who has spent a winter in western New York, let alone four of them, must wonder how they survived in their tents and what so many people might have eaten (there is no mention of manna!)

37. Any attempt to put a land northward in, say, Ontario, must face the fact that there is no trace of anything approaching what the Book of Mormon represents as Jaredite or Nephite society in that area.

This could go on and on and on ….

Thanks for providing this, it's really plain and easy to read over!

Edited August 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[Bart Burk]

In 2007 John L. Sorenson wrote :

Reasons Why Book of Mormon Geography

Could Not Have Included North America

This could go on and on and on ….

And I can find several books that would refute this analysis. I live near a Great Lake. When I sit on a Great Lake beach they sure seem like seas to me. It all boils down to where Joseph Smith found the book and where the prophecies within the book apply. I think it is possible to read too much into the relatively small amount of geographic detail the Book of Mormon supplies. But it is not difficult to see the prophecies relate to the United States. It also is hard to argue that the Hill Cumorah in Western New York is the one sure location identified in the Book of Mormon. In my mind any Book of Mormon geography must end there. Since the Book of Mormon is obviously taking place within a limited geographical area it seems to me the Great Lakes area fits best. Thinking that way helps the Book of Mormon come alive for me anyway. But, whatever works for you is fine.

[cursor]

I think it is possible to read too much into the relatively small amount of geographic detail the Book of Mormon supplies. But, whatever works for you is fine.

There is, actually, quite a wealth of map information supplied within the ancient text. A comprehensive evaluation can be found in a $16.50 text entitled, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, (I've linked a book review of the work.) Another very excellent book is Mormon's Map, which analyses Mormon's view of his world, The Book of Mormon is the primary document used to paint the probable picture. Used copies are available for under $5 at Amazon.com.

Edited August 16, 2012 by cursor

[Bart Burk]

There is, actually, quite a wealth of map information supplied within the ancient text. A comprehensive evaluation can be found in a $16.50 text entitled, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, (I've linked a book review of the work.) Another very excellent book is Mormon's Map, which analyses Mormon's view of his world, The Book of Mormon is the primary document used to paint a the probable picture. Used copies are available for under $5 at Amazon.com.

I'm more partial to this theory. It's not perfect, but it's a start:

http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/

[cursor]

Best of luck to you in your studies, Bart.