Latest "Pure Mormonism" Blog: North Vs. Central American Bofm Model

[Kevin Christensen]

Why will JS get revelations concerning things such as finance or property, and the Lord even naming the individuals that associated with him but not the geography of BoM lands? The D&C is full of these revelations and it is usually a revelation to get someone to do something they don't want to do.

This is very good question if you ask it as a real question, and not as a rhetorical tool to shut off answers. The answer as to why Joseph gets revelations on some topics and not others is explicit in the Doctrine and Covenants section 1.

6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, and my preface unto the book of my commandments,...

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

This does not say that the prophets immediately become God's sock puppets, their humanity obliterated, and their omniscience on all topics guarenteed by God himself. It tells me, and rather bluntly, to expect evidence of human weakness to continue, errors to be made, and to realize that revelation is conditioned upon their first seeking wisdom. It's clear from reading the D&C that the revelations are conditioned upon questions. Many of the questions had to do with finance or property questions that were of immediate concern to Joseph Smith and the early LDS members. It's also clear from LDS history that the first serious attempt to comprehensively study the internal statements in the Book of Mormon concerning geography did not appear until 1938. The clear truth is that for over 100 years, not one LDS member looked seriously for the 1000+ eye-witness details from people who did not have to ask where the Book of Mormon story happened because they were busy living the story. There aren't very many scriptures that tell the Saints, don't bother to study the scriptures, or seek out of the best books, because it's all predigested and prepared for you by your leaders who already know it all. Not many D&C revelations begin with the Lord saying, "Joseph, you know those questions you haven't even thought about yet because you were busy with other things? Call your scribe. It's all coming now. It will be a long day."

Outside of D&C 1, in several places the Lord explicitly notes that revelation depends on what is expedient from his perspective. An Isaiah 55 helps on that.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited January 7, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[canard78]

You misunderstand me. The "variables" you describe (my "manifold considerations") actually clarify and provide greater certainty when they are applied. In the absence of such rigor, of course you will be less sure of anything. Historical and archeological reconstructions of anything require a good deal of evidence from a variety of sources, and it is upon that basis that our standard histories are written and improved.

When I said that "Cumorah is in Mesoamerica," I was virtually saying that a multiplicity of data points make that very likely, and simultaneously make other options very unlikely. All secular knowledge is constructive and based upon probabilities.

Many thanks for clarifying.

[canard78]

Thanks for sticking at it with me - I appreciate that questions must sometimes be frustrating when one has reached an answer already. Apologies if any of the following sounds defensive:

The question assumes that JS was making this up, and this was his priorities.

My question or Tacenda's? I don't presume Joseph made the Book of Mormon or D&C up if that's your accusation. I don't think Tacenda does either. Can you clarify how you're reaching that conclusion about my or Tacenda's assumptions?

Now, if we assume that these revelations come from the Lord, I do assume revelations come from the Lord. It wasn't my intention to say otherwise.

then we can ask many questions on why the Lord does certain things == literally a million questions, and I cannot even pretend to understand the thinking of the Lord.

I have pointed out many times that BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, that the Lord is not in the business of satisfying our curiosity on many issues -- how the earth and solar system was created, how many inhabited planets exist and why doesn't the Lord allow us to communicate with them, how He is able to go vast distances to visit all of his creations, how exactly does eternity work -- the very "beginning" of things, I am very curious on how black holes fit into the creation process -- are therre multiuniverses, etc etc etc etc. And now **he** questions the Lord on why He has not given us the details of BOM geography?? I got alot of questions, and for me that is WAAAY down on the list.

But I am not arrogant to question the Lord on why He does not address these questions, but gives revelations on relatively mundane issues. Now you can tread where angels fear to tread -- "we expect the Lord to explain to me why the Lord does not tell us these things".

I feel it's a reasonable question because this is a thread about Book of Mormon geography. We're looking at what evidence is already in place and what statements were made by Joseph Smith about the geography. Given there's no authoritative revelation from him or anyone else then it seems reasonable (in the context of this thread) to consider why God doesn't want us to know where it is or why he wants us to find it through academic endeavors. From Joseph to today, church leaders have never said "stop looking." So why support a search for it, but not seek an inspired location? I'm not questioning the Lord, I'm trying to understand this: "What can we learn from the fact that Book of Mormon geography needs to be archaeologically sought and not given through revelation?"

Best of luck, pal. Everything we need to answer BOM geography is found in the text, and on the ground. It's a matter of research, and the rest of your time should be anxiously engaged in your salvation, rather than demanding that the Lord satisfy your curiosity.

I'm not really sure what to make of this. Best of luck with what? The research? My curiosity? The question? My salvation?

You seem to make a presumption about how I anxiously engage my time and what demands I place on the Lord. But perhaps I'm misreading you... or you're misreading me. I guess that's the downside of any message board.

Edited January 7, 2013 by canard78

[Brant Gardner]

From Joseph to today, church leaders have never said "stop looking." So why support a search for it, but not seek an inspired location.

I strongly suspect that this isn't something that the Brethren feel we should bother the Lord about. There are a lot of important questions that might be asked, but Book of Mormon geography isn't really one of them. Too many who are interested in it do so because they see it as a way of proving the Book of Mormon. The Lord doesn't appear to have any interest in doing that. Perhaps it is too close to seeking signs.

The value of the geography, when we look past the questions of proof, is that it can deepen our understanding of the text because we can gain background on why certain things happen the way that they do. That particular value can come from the secular work and doesn't require revelation. The adaptation of those understandings will be individual in any case.

From what I can discern of the role of God in history is that he only gently stirs the pot. Agency is a rather powerful principle and God seems to want us to "do many things of their own free will" (D&C 58:26).

[canard78]

I strongly suspect that this isn't something that the Brethren feel we should bother the Lord about. There are a lot of important questions that might be asked, but Book of Mormon geography isn't really one of them. Too many who are interested in it do so because they see it as a way of proving the Book of Mormon. The Lord doesn't appear to have any interest in doing that. Perhaps it is too close to seeking signs.

The value of the geography, when we look past the questions of proof, is that it can deepen our understanding of the text because we can gain background on why certain things happen the way that they do. That particular value can come from the secular work and doesn't require revelation. The adaptation of those understandings will be individual in any case.

From what I can discern of the role of God in history is that he only gently stirs the pot. Agency is a rather powerful principle and God seems to want us to "do many things of their own free will" (D&C 58:26).

Thanks - it's a reasonable thought process and one I guess you've had a lot of time to consider, given your vocation. I recognise that my most meaningful spiritual truths are the ones I've worked hard and studied hard to apply and discover for myself.

By the way, I mentioned to my mother last night that I was "discussing Book of Mormon geography with Brant Gardner." I got a wide-eyed 'wow.' (she's a long-term fan). I'm reminded of the generosity of time many well-read people on this board and thread continue to give to those of us with questions.

That applies to you too Cdowis

[canard78]

No, but apparently he copied much of the Wentworth letter response from one of the Pratts (as I recall). Even at that, the letter gives what had become the standard answer at the time, not a revelation. You will search in vain for the Wentworth letter in the D&C. It was written for a newspaper and from information as they understood it. So, I don't have any problem saying that it represented what Joseph understood, and that what he understood was the result of their best thinking rather than revelation.

I would have a bigger problem suggesting that everyone since Joseph has forgotten something that Joseph was clear about. When the powers that be have continuously maintained that there is no official geography, I follow them is supposing that what Joseph did say was speculation rather than revelation.

Ok, that seems reasonable. So what we're saying is that in the 1800s, the visions Joseph had, combined with a reading of the text (mixed in with various cultural/historical presumptions about America, Indians and the nature of a 'promised land), the following presumptions or speculations had been reached by Joseph and those around him: Jaredites were the first to land in an empty America. They were wiped out and were replaced by Israelites, a second distinct race in an (almost) empty America. After the Nephites were wiped out the remnant (Lamanites) went on to populate the rest of America.

I think that's a fairly reasonable reading of the Wentworth letter. I agree that it's not positioned as revelation and only the Articles of Faith was taken out and canonised. If my reading of Wentworth is reasonable we'd probably go on to say that based on today's historical understanding of America we think Joseph and associates got their presumptions and speculations wrong. We'd say there's no harm in that because he never gave that as revelation and was not 'speaking as a prophet.' We're all free to read and speculate as much as we like.

FWIW, for as long as I can remember reading the Book of Mormon I've always believed a 'limited geography' and 'pre-populated continent' approach. I was introduced to and engaged with the Book of Mormon in an era when that was becoming the consensus and it probably rubbed off on me. I probably shouldn't hold Joseph to a different standard. A point I keep reminding myself of.

One question that stems from the Wentworth letter (and I mentioned it when discussing the King Follett discourse recently). Why does Joseph appear to find it difficult to speak in speculative language? Is it because he's not speculating and is instead presuming or is it just an issue of his vocabulary?

This discomfort may well be a symptom of my own professional background. As a market researcher I have to be strict when making statements of fact or speculation. The words like "probably," "we think" and "it may be that..." are important qualifiers to speculation (and something our clients welcome when used in moderation). This language creates a distinction with points of proven fact which can make the same statement but with the speculative language taken out.

Even when Joseph appears to speculate or starts a discourse saying "I... offer you my ideas" he quickly moves into using language of absolute fact and certainty . Perhaps that's one of the challenges of Mormon apologetics. Joseph Smith didn't leave much wiggle room in his statements, even when he was apparently speculating.

[Rivers]

I think that God hasn't revealed the exact location of the Book of Mormon for the same reason I think he never revealed to us the germ theory, DNA, the shape of the earth, etc. That would take the fun and fulfillment of using our brains and figuring things out on our own.

[Rivers]

Ok, that seems reasonable. So what we're saying is that in the 1800s, the visions Joseph had, combined with a reading of the text (mixed in with various cultural/historical presumptions about America, Indians and the nature of a 'promised land), the following presumptions or speculations had been reached by Joseph and those around him: Jaredites were the first to land in an empty America. They were wiped out and were replaced by Israelites, a second distinct race in an (almost) empty America. After the Nephites were wiped out the remnant (Lamanites) went on to populate the rest of America.

I think that's a fairly reasonable reading of the Wentworth letter. I agree that it's not positioned as revelation and only the Articles of Faith was taken out and canonised. If my reading of Wentworth is reasonable we'd probably go on to say that based on today's historical understanding of America we think Joseph and associates got their presumptions and speculations wrong. We'd say there's no harm in that because he never gave that as revelation and was not 'speaking as a prophet.' We're all free to read and speculate as much as we like.

FWIW, for as long as I can remember reading the Book of Mormon I've always believed a 'limited geography' and 'pre-populated continent' approach. I was introduced to and engaged with the Book of Mormon in an era when that was becoming the consensus and it probably rubbed off on me. I probably shouldn't hold Joseph to a different standard. A point I keep reminding myself of.

One question that stems from the Wentworth letter (and I mentioned it when discussing the King Follett discourse recently). Why does Joseph appear to find it difficult to speak in speculative language? Is it because he's not speculating and is instead presuming or is it just an issue of his vocabulary?

This discomfort may well be a symptom of my own professional background. As a market researcher I have to be strict when making statements of fact or speculation. The words like "probably," "we think" and "it may be that..." are important qualifiers to speculation (and something our clients welcome when used in moderation). This language creates a distinction with points of proven fact which can make the same statement but with the speculative language taken out.

Even when Joseph appears to speculate or starts a discourse saying "I... offer you my ideas" he quickly moves into using language of absolute fact and certainty . Perhaps that's one of the challenges of Mormon apologetics. Joseph Smith didn't leave much wiggle room in his statements, even when he was apparently speculating.

I don't think Joseph Smith was really speculating. I'm guessing that he simply assumed certain things to be factual.

[Calm]

The question assumes that JS was making this up, and this was his priorities.

how does it assume that JS was making it up when there is the expectation that he needed to go to the Lord to find out where the geography is? I think the only assumption that is an issue is assuming that Joseph probably had the same priorities as we do while the reality is there is little comparison between his position of trying to care for all the Saints, often in very difficult circumstances while we just have our families to care about and our hardships are generally not financial...at least not in the same way his were where he was concerned with getting his people enough to eat, safe and healthy places to live and teaching them to live as one.

[Tacenda]

BoM lands to me since a child have been near the birth of JS. Where the plates were found. So when things have changed from the early years, it takes one a little getting use to. It must have occurred to JS later in life that where he thought was the BoM lands must not be possible therefore he changed it. But did he not have faith? Faith that HF hid the evidence?

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

It is possible maybe even likely that JS as a young man thought that upstate New York was the area for BoM events. I'm not convinced however that after the publication of the BoM he wasn't open to other places.

I don't believe HF hid the evidence, but he does allow us time to find it. IE; We're still finding places mentioned in the Bible nearly 2000 years ago.

[ERayR]

Why will JS get revelations concerning things such as finance or property, and the Lord even naming the individuals that associated with him but not the geography of BoM lands? The D&C is full of these revelations and it is usually a revelation to get someone to do something they don't want to do.

Because the revelations getting someone "to do something they don't want to do" was important to their or someone else s progression. Book of Mormon geography just isn't all that important. Interesting, very, essential, no.

Edited January 7, 2013 by ERayR

[Tacenda]

Because the revelations getting someone "to do something they don't want to do" was important to their or someone else s progression. Book of Mormon geography just isn't all that important. Interesting, very, essential, no.

I think that at the time of the D&C revelations, JS thought the geography was in his hometown and others did too.

[ERayR]

I wonder how many people over the eons have asked the Lord where Eden was.

Or the Tower of Babel or Noah's Ark.

[ERayR]

I think that God hasn't revealed the exact location of the Book of Mormon for the same reason I think he never revealed to us the germ theory, DNA, the shape of the earth, etc. That would take the fun and fulfillment of using our brains and figuring things out on our own.

That and they just are not critical to our salvation.

[ERayR]

I think that at the time of the D&C revelations, JS thought the geography was in his hometown and others did too.

To me the evidence indicates that to some extent this may be true. However, there are also indications that he himself was not totally convinced that such was the case.

[cinepro]

I think that God hasn't revealed the exact location of the Book of Mormon for the same reason I think he never revealed to us the germ theory, DNA, the shape of the earth, etc. That would take the fun and fulfillment of using our brains and figuring things out on our own.

That may be the case, but it does strike me that since there can only be one correct geography, the Lord has seen fit to allow certain LDS to waste quite a bit of time and money in the last 100 years promoting and believing in false geographies. We might disagree on who, exactly, is wasting their time, but we have to all agree that it is someone. I know at least one faithful LDS who has spent many hours reading books about a certain geography and discussing it with other LDS and even in Church meetings, and if he is pursuing the wrong one, it is a tragic waste of his time and money. Add all the time together for believes in the different geographies, and it is not a small number.

We might argue that there are benefits that can come even from pursuing a false geography, but I would argue that those benefits cannot outweigh the negatives. If the Lord did see fit to reveal just a few locations (say, the location of Cumorah, Zarahemla, and the land of Nephi), it would allow all the believers in false geographies to start spending their time and money on the promotion of truth. And it would take President Monson less than 60 seconds of pulpit time to say it.

We're not talking about a difficult thing. More complicated (and less important) things are presented all the time in General Conference and no one thinks twice about it.

Edited January 7, 2013 by cinepro

[Calm]

It is a logical conclusion that the record he dug up would be a record of that area. It wouldn't be until he translated the part that has Moroni traveling about, avoiding Lamanites for several decades that the opportunity for Moroni to take the plates away from the main events' area would be an obvious option and by then he might have an idea on what and where it happened stuck in his head strong enough he didn't really consider other ideas that closely.

Also while his mother described him as describing cultural appearances etc. so it is possible that part of his instruction included visions of the BoM setting, his vision wasn't 'reel to reel' so to speak. He was not aware, for example, that Jerusalem had walls until he came across that in the text so he was not shown that part of the history visually and likely not much of the rest. I would assume that Moroni would only show him enough to convince Joseph he was dealing with an actual history about real people so he would be more fully committed to the effort and have less doubt about it and himself.

If so it is understandable why he was secure enough in his knowledge that he didn't seek more revelation while still not knowing enough to locate the actual sites of the events.

[Calm]

That may be the case, but it does strike me that since there can only be one correct geography, the Lord has seen fit to allow certain LDS to waste quite a bit of time and money in the last 100 years promoting and believing in false geographies. We might disagree on who, exactly, is wasting their time, but we have to all agree that it is someone. I know at least one faithful LDS who has spent many hours reading books about a certain geography and discussing it with other LDS and even in Church meetings, and if he is pursuing the wrong one, it is a tragic waste of his time and money. Add all the time together for believes in the different geographies, and it is not a small number.

We might argue that there are benefits that can come even from pursuing a false geography, but I would argue that those benefits cannot outweigh the negatives. If the Lord did see fit to reveal just a few locations (say, the location of Cumorah, Zarahemla, and the land of Nephi), it would allow all the believers in false geographies to start spending their time and money on the promotion of truth. And it would take President Monson less than 60 seconds of pulpit time to say it. We're not talking about a difficult thing.

There are plenty of things the Lord has allowed people to waste time and resources on over the years, letting people choose for themselves what is important in their lives, etc. There are many much more worthwhile endeavours such as the cure for cancer that I think he would be likely to reveal before worrying about BoM geography. In order of importance to the world or the Church, it is way down on the list in my view.

Revelation isn't like picking up the phone and making a play request of the local radio station or even of the local librarian to do provide some answers for research one is doing. One earns the blessing of revelation through spiritual sacrifice and commitment. I have no doubt that the prophet would receive such as personal revelation if he has asked, but I dont see the Church in general having done so, too many of us treat our study of the text too superficially for that.

Edited January 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I wonder how many people over the eons have asked the Lord where Eden was.

I thought that's one Joseph did get revelation on?

But it's a fair point. I really don't care where Eden was. But then I'm not sure Eden ever 'was' anywhere other than in the symbol of the story.

Edited January 7, 2013 by canard78

[Calm]

Probably not the best example, but in my defence I haven't gotten my sleep lately.

How about where the Ark landed (Noah) or where the Ark is (Moses')?

[canard78]

There are plenty of things the Lord has allowed people to waste time and resources on over the years, letting people choose for themselves what is important in their lives, etc. There are many much more worthwhile endeavours such as the cure for cancer that I think he would be likely to reveal before worrying about BoM geography. In order of importance to the world or the Church, it is way down on the list in my view.

Revelation isn't like picking up the phone and making a play request of the local radio station or even of the local librarian to do provide some answers for research one is doing. One earns the blessing of revelation through spiritual sacrifice and commitment. I have no doubt that the prophet would receive such as personal revelation if he has asked, but I dont see the Church in general having done so, too many of us treat our study of the text too superficially for that.

I'm really trying to get on board with this line of thinking, but this is a bit of stretch in my mind. We keep saying God must have a priority list of things to reveal and that BoM geography is way down the list.

How many actual doctrinal revelations has there been from the prophet in the last year? Or 10 years? Joseph was getting daily 'new news' at certain stages. The idea that 'God's too busy' to reveal where Zarahemla is doesn't ring true to me.

Either he doesn't want us to know

He wants it found by archaeologists

Or it never existed to be found

Edit: I appreciate my comments are often overly negative. For clarity, I would fall somewhere between the first and second reason.

Edited January 8, 2013 by canard78

[Kevin Christensen]

When visiting the Nephites, Jesus told the gathered, awestruck people, "search the words of Isaiah," and "prepare your minds." Suppose I was there, and timidly raised my hand and said, "You could save us a lot of trouble and effort by just telling us."

Silence.

Awkward search for more self justification. "But Lord, reading is hard. And thinking is harder. Can't you please do everything for us while you are here? Make an authoritative pronouncement, so we only have to obey, and not have to read or think?"

sigh

Personally, I think he wants us to know but via a method that involves gentleness, meekness, long suffering, persuasion, gentleness and pure knowledge, rather than coercive head thumping or nationalistic rants. I think he wants us to try the experiment, as in Alma 32, personally performing experiments, planting the seed and watching for growth, expansion of our minds, and increased understanding, and strengthened faith. The Book of Mormon contains over a thousand passages with geographic information from eye-witnesses. "You mean we have to study it out in our minds first? All of that?" It's like a jigsaw puzzle. A hard one. But, I notice that I don't have to do all the work myself. We have people who have worked on the puzzle. Those that really do the work, show us their work. Their authority comes only from the quality of that work. That work saves some time, but still requires some serious effort to check. I notice that the directions in the Book of Mormon are sufficiently detailed to get us to a plausible Nahom and Bountiful in the Old World. It works because careful readers corrolate the eye-witness details in the text with the details on the ground. Granted, it helps that we have a known starting point with Jerusalem.

In the New World, where to start? If you start in the wrong place, it seems clear that it's going to be hard to get the pieces to fit. It seems clear that it will be better to work with the actual pieces, in textual context, rather than trying to simplify the problem by relying totally on what favorite authorities have said about the pieces, particularly, when those authorities have left no evidence that they actually gathered the puzzle pieces, or considered how all of them should interlock. 22 days march from Nephi to Zarahemla by families with children and domestric animals. Does 100 miles a day fit? Or is 10 more reasonable? If the traditional identification of the New York hill as the Ramah/Cumorah of the text is correct, all of the textual descriptions should also fit. If the traditional identification is not correct, they won't fit. Imagine the results if someone confused the Old World Jerusalem with the New World Jerusalem, or the Old World Bountiful where Nephi built the ship, with the 3 Nephi Bountiful where Jesus appears. Almost no one gets confused on that point. And few are troubled by multiple individuals in the Book of Mormon bearing the same name. How many Nephi's are there? How many prophets named Joseph Smith have we had? Despite the same name being applied, we have very little confusion, because most people realize that details of time and place and context matter. The name as such is just a label applied by people. A name does not eminate from objects, retaining the same form and meaning to all observers, no matter what culture, time, or place in which the name appears. If you start by assuming that Joseph Smith "must have known" and never bother to account for explicit declarations in D&C 1 that undermine that assumption, and never bother to account for the 1000+ details in the text that ought to converge, you may be building on sand.

Where to start looking in the New World? I like this from Larry Poulson:

Although the narrow (small) neck is only mentioned three times in the Book of Mormon, it has been the

primary focus of attempts to define the geographic location of the Book of Mormon lands. This narrow focus

has resulted in numerous possible locations being proposed with, in many cases, little attention to whether

surrounding geography is consistent with the text of the Book of Mormon. The river Sidon , however, occurs

37 times in 28 different verses with accompanying directional and geographic information related to at least

six different geographical locations. Using satellite maps, a 3D satellite mapping program and the text of the

Book of Mormon, the geography of the Americas was analyzed in an attempt to find unique areas that

correlate with the textual descriptions of the river Sidon.

http://www.poulsenll...jalvasidon.html

If you start out wrong, things will stay wrong. The wrong hill, for instance, may have the wrong relationship with weather, no appropatiate cultures, no architectural features like the cement buildings in the right relationship at the right times, or no viable Sidon, or evidence for volcanic activity. But if you start out right, things will start to fit, to "converge" as Brant has argued. Details will fit together and re-enforce one another. Cites of cement at the right time and place, cultural presence of the right type at the right time, evidence of volcanic activity, and a good explanation for why, for instance, Limhi's explorers could get lost, see what they did while they were lost, and find an unoccupied city in the right relationship to a river for them to suppose it could have been Zarahemla. The more elaborate the convergence, the greater likelyhood we have a correct identification, and the more promise the model has for resolving open issues. For instance, there is a paper arguing that metal ore deposits in Mesoamerica corollolate rather well with the mention of metals at various points in the text. Where the narrative does not mention metal, the Mesomerican locations don't have metal. Where it does, the ore deposits exist. That is not a proof, but a convergence with promise.

And if someone says, "Hey! What you are describing does not look like the seed I planted!" That is because it is not supposed to look like the seed you planted. It grows, it puts out shoots, and puts down roots, and changes because it is in the right place and time and had the right nurture to change and grow. If nothing happened, you'd still recognize it, but it would also not be doing what a seed should do.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 8, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Brant Gardner]

Even when Joseph appears to speculate or starts a discourse saying "I... offer you my ideas" he quickly moves into using language of absolute fact and certainty .

I got called out in a FAIR Conference question and answer period for that same thing. The questioner wondered why I didn't qualify pretty much everything to make it all less certain. Of course I am always wrong about something, but when I am I don't typically know it until after I learn why. In the meantime, I do tend to seem certain depending upon the audience. It doesn't surprise me at all that Joseph was confident.

[Brant Gardner]

If the Lord did see fit to reveal just a few locations (say, the location of Cumorah, Zarahemla, and the land of Nephi), it would allow all the believers in false geographies to start spending their time and money on the promotion of truth. And it would take President Monson less than 60 seconds of pulpit time to say it.

But then I wouldn't have anything to fill up my spare time.