Mormon,Mormonism Book of Mormon Geography

The peoples of the Book of Mormon migrations were Semites and came from the Mediterranean area. After arriving in the Americas, they built cities and highways, and established commerce between the cities. The Book of Mormon does not say there were no other people in the Americas when the migrations occurred. In fact, the Book of Mormon does not identify where in the Americas the people landed and built their cities. Geographical references are vague, such as a "narrow neck of land", and do not allow us to identify actual places in the Americas that would be places referenced in the book.

The view of migrations to the Americas given by science is quite different than the view given by the Book of Mormon. According to science, the first migration to the Americas that resulted in permanent settlements that exist today was by Columbus in 1492. There is evidence that the Vikings visited North America prior to Columbus and did form settlements, but those settlements were not permanent.

Scientists have focused on identifying the first people to migrate to the Americas. Current belief of many scientists is that the early migrations to the Americas were via a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska. This happened during the ice age when the level of the oceans was much less than it is now, and there is good scientific evidence that people walked to Alaska. As the ice age came to an end and the ice melted, the land bridge was flooded, as it is today.

In additional to traditional scientific research into the early migrations to the Americas, recent studies of the DNA of Native Americans show that their ancestors did, in fact, come from Asia. However, the Ojibwa tribe, that lives near the Great Lakes, has a DNA line that goes into Europe not Asia. However, that line could not have come from Book of Mormon peoples, because it was dated to be 14,000 or more years ago. This difference of the Book of Mormon and scientific views about migrations to the Americas has existed for many years. There has been a strong belief among Latter-day Saints that the peoples of the Book of Mormon were the principle, if not the only, ancestors of Native Americans. I grew up with this view. I taught this view as a missionary in 1956-1958. Some LDS leaders have taught this view.

This view even became embedded in the bound volume of the Book of Mormon. In 1981, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published a new version of the Book of Mormon, and an Introduction page was added to the book. It is believed that the Introduction was written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve. That Introduction states, "After thousands of years, all [the Book of Mormon peoples] were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." However, that statement is not supported by science.

But, an interesting thing has happened. It was just revealed by the Deseret Morning News and the Salt Lake Tribune that the LDS Church has changed the wording of that statement in the Introduction to be as follows. "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians." This change will be made in a special version of the Book of Mormon for non-LDS that is published by Doubleday, and a church spokesperson said it will be made in the next version of the Book of Mormon for LDS members. The text of the special version by Doubleday is the same as the text in the LDS version, but the special version doesn't have the cross references and chapter headings. This change in the Introduction is a needed and welcome change, because it brings the Introduction, and the thinking of LDS people, into closer agreement with scientific findings. It is one step toward the convergence of science and religion that I believe will eventually happen. As I said above, the Book of Mormon does not claim that the Book of Mormon peoples were the only people in the Americas. The belief among LDS that those people were the only peoples in America comes from custom and tradition and not from the book.

Let us now look more closely at speculation about the geography of the Book of Mormon.

Book of Mormon Geography

Some individuals have published about the Book of Mormon geography, but their ideas are nothing more than speculation. At the present time, the center of speculation seems to be the Yucatan Peninsula. That area has a number of geographical features that seem to fit Book of Mormon geography. In addition there are archaeological remains that fit the time-line of the Book of Mormon. However, those archaeological evidences are only parallel evidences of the Book of Mormon, and they do not prove the Book of Mormon history and geography to be true. For those interested, I have an essay in my LDS site that explains the differences between parallel and direct evidences. At the present time, we have no direct scientific evidences of the Book of Mormon.

Deciding precisely where the peoples of the Book of Mormon lived is a difficult if not an impossible task. The Book of Mormon gives geographic information about cities, rivers, mountains, relative distance between cities, etc., but the information is described in such general ways that it can not easily be correlated with the actual geography of the Americas. We are thus left to deciphering statements by Joseph Smith and other General Authorities of the Church, both before and after the exodus to the Great Basin, and to scholarly attempts to fit the Book of Mormon descriptions to actual geography.

Joseph Smith first learned about the Book of Mormon when he was visited by the Angel Moroni on September 21, 1823. We don't have the exact words used by Moroni to describe the peoples of the Book of Mormon, but we do have the words written by Joseph Smith about 16 years later to describe the visit of Moroni.

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; (Pearl of Great Price, History of Joseph Smith, 34)

A Hemispheric View of the Book of Mormon Geography

Joseph wrote that the peoples of the Book of Mormon were the "former inhabitants of this continent". That statement is ambiguous and doesn't say anything about how numerous the people were or where they lived, but the statement was interpreted to mean that the peoples of the Book of Mormon were the only former inhabitants of this land. It's obvious from sermons given by Joseph Smith and by other General Authorities of the Church, both before and after the exodus to the Great Basin, that they believed the peoples of the Book of Mormon were so numerous that they had scattered over North, Central, and South America, and that all American Indians were descended from those peoples. This view of the Book of Mormon geography is explained by Michael R. Ash in an article published by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR).

The Lord has never revealed the specific location of Book of Mormon events. Instead, we are left to our own speculations concerning Book of Mormon geography. Since the days of Joseph Smith most Saints believed that the Book of Mormon took place across the entire expanse of North and South America. This theory—referred to as the Hemispheric Geography Theory (HGT) posits that North America is the “land northward,” that South America is the “land southward,” and that present-day Panama is the “narrow neck” of land. This is a natural interpretation of Book of Mormon geography based on a cursory reading and superficial understanding to the Book of Mormon text.

I grew up with this understanding of the peoples of the Book of Mormon. This belief was apparently accepted by the members of the committee that approved the text of the Introduction to the 1981 version of the Book of Mormon. That Introduction refers to the Lamanites as the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

A Limited View of the Book of Mormon Geography

I don't know when the movement by scholars for a more restricted geography of the Book of Mormon began, but by the 1980s, the movement had a good foothold in the literature about the Book of Mormon. Michael R. Ash explains the restricted view as follows.

Currently, most LDS scholars (and some LDS leaders) reject the HGT in favor of a Limited Geography Theory (LGT) for the Book of Mormon. This theory posits that the Lehites arrived to a New World already inhabited. (I discuss this in a brochure entitled “Were the Lehites Alone in the Americas?”) According to this view, the Lehites would have not only engaged these natives, but they would have also become part of their society and culture. The LGT claims that Book of Mormon events would have taken place in a relatively small area of land and that this section of land is that of Mesoamerica (Central America) with the Isthmus of Teuhuantepec as the “narrow neck” of land.

Please refer to Ash's article for more information about the two views of Book of Mormon geography, including his explanation why Joseph Smith and subsequent Prophets accepted a Hemispheric Geography of the Book of Mormon. The link I had to Ash's article no longer works, and I've removed the link from this post. I assume the article is still online; I just need to locate it and create a new link.

My first exposure to the Limited Geography Theory was the book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, published in 1985 by Dr. John L. Sorenson. Dr. Sorenson attempted to model the Book of Mormon geography by converting the Book of Mormon descriptions into miles. For example, if people traveled three days to reach a neighboring city, Dr. Sorenson would estimate how far those people might travel in a day and thus determine the approximate distance in miles to the adjacent city. His model of the Book of Mormon geography indicated that the people lived in a relatively small area, and the area of Mesoamerica provides a good fit to Sorenson's model. As I read the book, I realized that his approach to Book of Mormon geography made more sense than the ideas I had as a youth.

There are actually other LGT theories, including the Great Lakes area and Baja Mexico. I'm not familiar with these theories and have not included them in this post. Persons familiar with these theories are invited to explain the theories in comments to this post.

LDS Beliefs About Book of Mormon Geography are Folklore

In other posts to this blog,  I discuss folklore vs. the scriptures as sources of religious information. Since the Book of Mormon does not identify in terms of modern geography the locations of places in the book, and as far as we know the Lord hasn't revealed the precise location of those places, we must classify all statements about Book of Mormon geography and the size and locations of the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations as folklore. This includes statements by LDS Presidents, LDS Apostles, and scholars such as Sorenson. In recognizing that such statements are folklore, we also recognize that the statements might be true or they might be false.

Some Latter-day Saints object to the classification of statements by Joseph Smith and more recent living prophets as being folklore. I respect their views and sensitivity about statements made by living prophets, and I kindly remind them that I'm only referring to statements about Book of Mormon geography and the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, not to statements about doctrine and scriptural interpretation.

The Parallel between Science and the Book of Mormon about MigrationAs we look for parallels between the scientific view of migrations to the Americas and the Book of Mormon view of the migrations, let us realize that we are looking for parallels to the Book of Mormon view, not parallels to LDS folklore about the Book of Mormon. In order for the scientific and religious views of those migrations to converge, we will likely need changes to both views. We have recently seen a change to the religious view that brings the two views closer to reconciliation. I am anxiously awaiting future changes in both views that will eventually bring the two views together.

Summary

Currently, there is no scientific evidence to prove Book of Mormon claims of migrations to the Americas. Does this prove the Book of Mormon is false? Many people say, "Yes". I say, "No". I believe that lack of evidence does not prove that the object being investigated does not exist. Lack of evidence only proves there is a lack of evidence. For example, scientific evidence exists that there are planets orbiting distant stars. However, that evidence did not exist 20 years ago. If a scientist were asked 20 years ago if there were planets in other solar systems, he or she would have to answer, "I don't know". So it is today with migrations to the Americas. Lack of evidence of the Book of Mormon migrations does not imply those migrations did not occur.

I am a religious person, and I believe the Book of Mormon is true. I believe the Jaredite and Lehite migrations did occur. I believe that eventually scientific evidence will be found to support those migrations, although my belief is that evidence probably won't be found until we are in the Millennium. I believe the Book of Mormon is true, because I accept it on faith. I accept the book because it adds value to my life. To me, it is a book of faith not of science. The Bible has a similar problem. The history in the Bible supported to an extent by archaeological findings, but there is no scientific evidence for the spiritual parts of the Bible. There is no scientific evidence for the miracles performed by Christ, for his resurrection, for his providing salvation through the Atonement. I accept the Bible on faith. I accept the Bible because it adds value to my life.

I believe people who insist on scientific evidence or philosophical logic for the existence of God are treading on thin ice. I believe that God is not part of this mortal world. I believe that science can not observe God. There is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God. People who require science to validate God will never find that validation and will likely conclude there is no God. In doing this, they are being dishonest with themselves, because they are forming a conclusion with no evidence to support that conclusion.

I am content to keep the questions of scientific evidence for the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the existence of God as open questions.