A Review of Roper's Joseph Smith, Revelation, and the Book of Mormon Geography

[Bob Crockett]

Matt Roper's first article in 22 FR 2 is a tempest in a teapot although it isn't really Bro. Roper's teapot and it is hard to fault him for jumping into the tempest. I can summarize the dispute between Meldrum/Porter and Maxell Institute scholars in three sentences, but the dispute really defies such easy summary. As simply as I can put it, the emergence of the Tea Party movement has given greater impetus and drive to a certain faction of Latter-day Saints who believe that Mormonism and United States supremacy go hand in hand. These LDS nativists also believe that operating a for-profit enterprise to advance their theories (note that, in contrast, the Maxwell Institute is non-profit) is completely acceptable, and they aren't put off in the least by the fact that one of them, at the least, is forbidden to speak at church firesides and that BYU's Education Week has barred their presentation. Perhaps, this emerging neo-nativist (I call it neo-nativist because we've seen it before) view bears some similarity to Mormon fundamentalism, although Meldrum and Porter haven't yet taken to disparaging the Brethren.

Roper's Joseph Smith, Revelation, and the Book of Mormon Geography is a review of Prophecies and Promises. Roper's first article in 22 FR 2 displays the best and the worst (which isn't much of a worst, in my view) of the Maxwell Institute's response to Meldrum and Porter.

The first part of Roper's article addresses the most significant of Meldrum and Porter's position, and that is the view that the Brethren have historically supported a non-Mesoamerican view of Book of Mormon geography. Let me say immediately that it is absurd to argue that Joseph Smith and the Brethren have even remotely suggested that Book of Mormon events did not occur in Mesoamerica. One of the most influential pieces of evidence in my mind to refute such nonsense, and one that I've known of for decades, is the chatter in the Mormon press and journals resulting from the publication of the Stephens and Catherwood's finds. These finds were monumental in their significance; almost as significant as finding the Rosetta Stone. These finds led to a massive increase in Mesoamerican scholarship, and even today excavation has hardly made a dent in the Yucatan. For Joseph Smith and the Brethren to take notice of these finds and comment upon them demonstrates, beyond just about anything else, that they believed that these finds provided support for the geography of the Book of Mormon lands.

Where Meldrum and Porter, on the one hand, and the Maxwell Institute, on the other hand, conflict is over the statements of the Brethren about such things as North American locations of Indian tribes, suppositions about ancient locations for Manti and Zarahemla, and the location of the Hill Cumorah. In my mind, the Brethren have been ambivalent about all Book of Mormon geography except in one respect -- the Hill Cumorah. [Even so, Roper identifies some selected ambivalence about that topic, as well.] What sets the Hill Cumorah apart from every other place mentioned in the Book of Mormon is the fact that the gold plates (the text of the Book of Mormon) were found in the nineteenth century in a known place, thus putting a pin in the map for one geographic point for the Book of Mormon story.

And so, Roper takes off with his analysis of what the Brethren have said in the past. He emphasizes those statements which suggest the Brethren say there is no position to take on Book of Mormon geography. Roper deemphasizes those statements, as strident as they really are, which takes a position about Book of Mormon geography. For instance, he deftly marginalizes Joseph F. Smith's statement in Doctrines of Salvation by describing it as a Deseret News statement made years before he became President of the Church. He describes Doctrines of Salvation as something complied by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, which could be seen perhaps as a swipe at the book. On the other side of the ledger, of course, Doctrines of Salvation has been used as a priesthood manual and is still in publication by the Church's Deseret Books. When I last checked, Doctrines of Salvation appears to be one of the heaviest-cited reference works in general conference talks.

Roper does not mention other very strong statements of the Brethren, such as those made by James Talmage in Articles of Faith, or the statements of the Brethren in the general conference immediately following the purchase of the Hill Cumorah. These statements include Pres. Ivin's statement that "we know positively" that Ramah/Cumorah/NY Cumorah are one and the same. Roper does, however, identify an Ivins statement to the contrary.

Roper concludes his analysis of what the Brethren have said, at least at this point, with: "It is a matter of study and scholarship, not a measure of faithfulness." Rather, it should be said: "Is it worth spending so much effort looking for geographic locations for the Book of Mormon when the Brethren have suggested that it doesn't matter?" Both factions, Meldrum and Porter on the one hand, and the Maxwell Institute, on the other hand, would answer that question with a "yes," when I think the Church authorities mustered by Roper would say "no." [but then there's that pesky Milton R. Hunter.] I'd say that both sides are starting to sound like Thomas Stuart Ferguson. Why should we care that Zarahemla is in Guatemala or is in Ohio?

Roper's essay then talks about "how not to have a conversation about Book of Mormon geography." Here, I have no criticisms of the analysis, except to offer a very mild, "Pot meet Kettle." There should be a lot more civility in this discussion and Meldrum and Porter aren't very strong on civility. They should politely acknowledge that folks have differing views on the subject and it isn't a matter of apostasy to accept a Mesoamerican model. If it were so, then the two of them wouldn't be barred as they seem to be from the institutional presentation venues in the Church, as were Newell and Avery before them. As to my Pot v Kettle comment, I imagine it is hard to condemn the Meldrum and Porter approach without a measure of enthusiastic criticism. After all, a book review is a criticism.

Roper goes back to what the Brethren have said with a discussion about "Doesn't a Prophet Know Everything?" And, of course, he has the upper hand in this conversation. It is naive to think that Prophets, including Joseph Smith, are some sort of savant on all topics. They aren't. Otherwise Joshua would not have been deceived by the Gibeonites, Eli by his sons, Moses by his brother and wife, Solomon by his wives and so forth and so on.

Really, the most fascinating discussion in this essay is the criticism of Meldrum and Porter's nativism in "Land, Continent, and Context." My only criticism of Roper in this discussion is he reminds me of the high school football coach coming out of a contest with a 72-0 score; he's just needlessly pouring it on. Meldrum and Porter have their "U.S. First" argument completely wrong; the Book of Mormon does not even remotely support this theory. But, unfortunately, there are many in the Church who hold this view and hold it to the detriment of the Lamanites of the Americas for whom the Church was created (in part).

Roper then reverts back again to a discussion of whether Book of Mormon geography is revealed, which is just another twist of the discussion about what the Brethren have said. Here, we receive some analysis of the cities of Manti, Zarahemla and other instances of what I think are unique "Mormon legends" about North American and Nephite sites. Although Roper tries to minimize each of these, I come away from the discussion thinking that the early Saints overwhelmingly and to a person thought that they were standing on ground sanctified by Nephites blood. And, I really think that my pioneer ancestors thought that, as well as certain of my general authority relatives of the immediate past century. Are these really just the false traditions of the fathers? The question sits uncomfortably in my mind and I don't think Roper can possibly dispel that discomfort shared by many of us.

My eyes glazed over the discussion of the Times and Seasons ownership, which I've read elsewhere and which didn't contribute to the discussion much, nor the wordprint analysis. I use statisticians in my work all the time, as well as wordprint analysis (in plagiarism disputes) and don't think much of a wordprint analysis, but there's my bias on that point.

[Calm]

although Meldrum and Porter haven't yet taken to disparaging the Brethren.

Perhaps not outright, but at least Meldrum has claimed at least one position that imply he thinks the Brethren are willing to deceive members to gain acceptance from the world, Meldrum holds a young earth position in regards to the timing of creation and his explanation for why BYU teaches the mainstream scientific geological position as factual and truth in their science courses was so that BYU has the approval of the world (paraphrase of his words, the thread where he responded to my question on why he thinks the Brethren allow such to be taught when he claims that the young earth is actual doctrine of the Church may be gone I'll have to check). So he seems to think that the Brethren are perfectly okay with teaching false doctrine for appearances' sake (granted he would not come right out and say that, just danced around dealing with the implications of his position).

Apparently he thinks the Brethren are willing to let others lead in terms of teaching doctrine as he states or implies that the Brethren have been misled by scholars in their support of the Maxwell Institute (bringing it under BYU's umbrella as well as having it now bear the name of an apostle).

[Calm]

Why should we care that Zarahemla is in Guatemala or is in Ohio?

If one values the insights that can come from viewing scripture in its original cultural context, I think there is reason to care about where that culture was because that tells us what the culture was. I have found Brant Gardner's work using the Mesoamerican context to explain the events and interactions that occur in the BoM to be very helpful in making the scripture overall more meaningful (the use of the temple context to examine Christ's interactions with the Lehites in 3rd Nephi is extremely impressive as well...IIRC that is Welch's work).

Otherwise I don't really care. If the remnant of Lehi's seed means all those who are descended from him (DNA traceable or not), then I see the potential of the prophecies applying to all present in this hemisphere (of bloodlines present here prior to the arrival of the Europeans) due to the likelihood of migration and intermarriage (similar to Charlemagne being an ancestor of almost all Europeans). If this hemispherical continuity is accurate, then one doesn't need to identify location to attempt to decipher the where of prophecies, etc....at least so as to determine what promises belong to whom since the promises are pretty much universal....and why not, after all God spoke of all the world being blessed through the seed of Abraham, if he is not inclined to limit blessings, why should we be?