Comments on: Book of Mormon Geography

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:30:28 +0000

The point is, James, that no New World spot mentioned in the Book of Mormon can be definitively tied to any corresponding spot on the globe today. It’s all speculation, whether it comes from FARMS or from your wacky neighbor, and should be presented as such.

In this way a study of Book of Mormon geography differs very much from a study of Biblical geography.

I would agree that a study of Book of Mormon geography based on the relative positions of places mentioned could potentially have value if it led to new understanding of Nephite/Lamanite behavior and history. But the moment anyone insists that Place X mentioned in the Book of Mormon corresponds to some known spot on our current map — at that point, they have crossed the boundary from scholarship to fantasy, and quite likely to fanaticism.

By: James Warr

James Warr — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:16:38 +0000

I suppose the question is should we even engage in a study of Book of Mormon geography? I note that GQC finishes his article with the answer.
“Of course, there can be no harm result from the study of the geography of this continent at the time it was settled by the Nephites, drawing all the information possibly from the record which has been translated for our benefit.”
I would imagine that the main objection to such studies would be if they result in contention among the members. This has always been condemned, even contention upon the basic principles of the gospel.
Apparently the church thinks it is profitable to engage in such an endeavor. They have supported and financed such research through entities such as NWAF and FARMS since the 1950s.
Is such a quest really worthwhile? Imagine what a knowledge of the Bible would be like without information on Biblical geography. The same would be the case with the Book of Mormon. Great will be the day when we definitely know the truth about it.
Mormon must have had a desire that we know about his lands as he wasted a lot of valuable space on the plates describing them. Could this space have been better used for more spiritual things?
Even Joseph himself was known to have speculated on the location of of Zarahemla. He thought it was in Guatemala. Unfortunately, most do not know the boundaries of the Kingdom of Guatemala at that time.
One additional point:
MG states, “I think sometimes people forget that the land changed at Christ’s death and is still changing. And what does it matter, really?”
Many people seem to have this notion. Although the land was changed at the crucifixion, Mormon is the one who gives us almost all the geographical information 350 years after the fact. He is describing the land after the changes had occurred. And yes, it does matter–a lot.

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:21:13 +0000

Thanks for posting the entire excerpt of this quote by President Cannon. Needless to say, many have been taught that Book of Mormon geography as if it were a well-attested fact. However, the Brethren have consistently stated it is not. In that context, I find Nibley's comments about the Narrow Neck of Land intriguing. But even then, without the benefit of one's own direct revelation, who knows where these events took place?

By: Clean Cut

Clean Cut — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:33:55 +0000

This is great. It certainly has other implications, as well. There are multiple examples of speculation becoming accepted almost as doctrine, or when people say more that we actually know. We have to be careful because, after all, some of us are gullible. Or as Elder Delbert Stapley would say, “the Saints are suckers”.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:26 +0000

Wow Justin. That's amazing. I just read a review of the book from FARMS. I find it very interesting that a casual investigator of the church would write a book like that. Fascinating.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:14:50 +0000

Thanks for finding this, Ardis.

By: Jim Cobabe

Jim Cobabe — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:36:32 +0000

Ancient America was a big fad in the church when I was growing up. I think Milton R. Hunter was one of the enthusiast. It is really odd and funny (amusing) to learn that some church leaders had the foresight to warn against such silliness, so long ago. Thanks, Ardis.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:09:53 +0000

I know I’ve mentioned before somewhere that I knew some African members of the church who could not be convinced that the Book of Mormon did not take place in Africa. I am reminded of Embaye Melekin's book Manifestations Mysteries Revealed in which he claims that the Book of Mormon tells the history of the African people.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:54:15 +0000

To add to kevinf’s comment, I know I’ve mentioned before somewhere that I knew some African members of the church who could not be convinced that the Book of Mormon did not take place in Africa.

On the other hand, I’m sure there are those who feel that their efforts could mimic those of Heinrich Schliemann who believed that Troy could be located by a close reading of Homer. Not a popular position, but he proved himself right.

By: kevinf

kevinf — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:25:29 +0000

Wise and prudent counsel, I think. I’m reminded of running across somewhere here on the internet a BYU professor that claims to have found as much evidence for setting the BoM events on the Malay peninsula as for Central or South America. Ultimately, the Book of Mormon is an artifact of faith, else of what use is it?