Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a new authoritative statement from church leaders on Book of Mormon geography. As has been reported elsewhere (here and here), the new entry in the Gospel Topics section “Book of Mormon Geography” states,
The Church takes no position on the specific geographic location of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. Church members are asked not to teach theories about Book of Mormon geography in Church settings but to focus instead on the Book of Mormon’s teachings and testimony of Jesus Christ and His gospel.
“Book of Mormon Geography” Gospel Topics entry
The entry goes on to note that since the church’s founding members and leaders have expressed “numerous opinions” on where Book of Mormon events took place. It cites an 1834 statement by Joseph Smith assigning North American lands to the Book of Mormon, and a later 1842 church newspaper article suggesting Central American ruins were remnants of Book of Mormon civilizations. The statement indicates that members have also attributed Book of Mormon lands to South America. The entry reiterates, “Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church takes no position on the geography of the Book of Mormon except that the events it describes took place in the Americas.”
As blogger Churchistrue mentioned in a post at Wheat and Tares last summer, the most common Book of Mormon geography theories today are hemispheric (encompassing North, Central, and South America), Mesoamerican, and North American (often called the Heartland theory). [1] The website Book of Mormon Central has a more in-depth summary of the historical origin of these different viewpoints.
In the last century, the hemispheric model has become difficult to maintain in the face of scientific discoveries about the peopling of the Americas. In 2006, church leaders changed introductory language to the Book of Mormon. Instead of Lamanites being the “principal ancestors of the American Indians,” they were “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” A Gospel Topics essay released in January 2014, “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” states,
“The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA.3 Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska.4 These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America and were likely the primary ancestors of modern American Indians.5
“Book of Mormon and DNA Studies” Gospel Topics Essay
In recent years, arguments about Book of Mormon geography have gotten heated, particularly between proponents of Mesoamerican and Heartland models (though some have tried to merge the two). The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), a major Mormon apologetic powerhouse established in 1979, unabashedly promoted Mesoamerican theories for Book of Mormon geography. Modern apologist organizations like FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, and the Interpreter Foundation have also cited Mesoamerican evidence for the Book of Mormon. The FIRM Foundation (Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism), which sponsors an annual International Book of Mormon Evidence Conference, espouses the Heartland theory. (Interestingly, an article at their site argues Mesoamerican theories originated from an 1842 conspiracy.)
Some of the Heartland persuasion recently accused the Church History Department of expressing “a preference against” the Heartland model in the first volume of the new official church history, Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days. Proponents of the Heartland model often point to early statements by Joseph Smith, like the 1834 letter cited in the “Book of Mormon Geography” entry, as revelatory proof of a North American setting for the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, the Church seems to be suggesting in its new Gospel Topics entry that positions of early leaders, including Joseph Smith himself, were merely opinion, not authoritative statements.
Accessibility
It should be noted that this entry seems to only be available in a newer version of the Gospel Topics section accessible in the Gospel Library app and directly via the link cited above. Navigating the menus from the home page of LDS.org will only take you to an older version of Gospel Topics, pictured below. The new section “Book of Mormon Geography” is not one of the available options in this older version.[2]
Cultural Identity
Something often overlooked in these Book of Mormon geography debates are the implications for those who have been told the Book of Mormon is the story of their ancestors. Over the last two centuries, indigenous people throughout North, Central and South America and the Pacific Islands have been told they are Lamanites or descendants of the Nephite shipbuilder Hagoth (Alma 63:5).[3] As explained in the “Lamanite Identity” Church History topic entry, “After receiving the gospel, converts in these regions embraced the way the Book of Mormon connected them with a lost heritage and a promised future, especially in contrast to the difficult, sometimes oppressive conditions under which they lived.”
In 2008 a college student produced a documentary titled In Laman’s Terms: Looking at Lamanite Identity. From the film’s description at the Culture Unplugged website, “Angelo Baca, a Navajo and Hopi filmmaker, takes a personal journey exploring the influences of the Mormon culture upon his own and what the definition of a Lamanite really means from individuals from within the church as well as outside of it.” What struck me during the film was a statement by Angelo Baca’s mother, Ida Yellowman.
[43:44] I thought at one time the Native Americans were the Lamanites. That’s all it was. All of the sudden today there’s Polynesians, there’s Hispanics, some I don’t even know what they are. So are we more confused today and not sure who we are? All of a sudden everyone’s a Lamanite because everybody’s dark skin?
In Laman’s Terms: Looking at Lamanite Identity
Lamanite identity itself is a double-edged sword. A recent collection of essays, Decolonizing Mormonism: Approaching a Postcolonial Zion, has gathered several perspectives on the effects of Mormonism on indigenous lives and cultures. In “This is the Place!” Elise Boxer notes, “Indigenous peoples occupy an interesting space in the LDS Church in which we are a fallen and promised people simultaneously” (p. 92).
The “Lamanite Identity” Church History topic entry admits this dichotomy.
Book of Mormon promises for the Lamanites motivated early efforts to bridge cultural gaps between Saints with European ancestry and Saints, or prospective converts, with Native American ancestry…
Unfortunately, some Church members have viewed groups they considered to be Lamanites with condescension or contempt, particularly in times of conflict.13 Consequently, some members of the same groups that embraced Lamanite identity have come to feel conflicted about the way this heritage is sometimes discussed in the Church.
“Lamanite Identity,” Church History Topics entry
In Decolonizing Mormonism, Gina Colvin wrote of her experience as a
Māori member of the church in New Zealand.
The fact that Mormonism saw my ancestry and weaved into its theology offered me a sense of place and even confidence that no one else could.
I’m grateful that for a time I believed I was of Lamanite origin. Except now I have to face that it is likely that I’m not. Even as the rise of DNA research tells an entirely different story, I wonder how useful it will be to tap my aged uncle on the shoulder and inform him that for all of these years, through church building, church service and raising Mormon children he was under a delusion–that there is no evidence that these pronouncements are factual.
“A Maori Mormon Testimony,” Decolonizing Mormonism: Approaching a Postcolonial Zion, p. 41-42
From the “Lamanite Identity” Church History Topic entry,
Just as the history of the northern ten tribes of Israel after their exile in Assyria is a matter of speculation rather than knowledge, the history of the Lamanites after the close of the Book of Mormon record is a matter of speculation. The Church asserts that all members are part of the covenant house of Israel either by descent or adoption but does not take a position on the specific geography of the Book of Mormon or claim complete knowledge about the origins of any specific modern group in the Americas or the Pacific. Whatever the historical particulars, the Church continues its efforts to help realize the hopes of Book of Mormon prophets that the covenants of the Lord might be extended to all the lost sheep of Israel.
“Lamanite Identity,” Church History Topics entry
Discuss.
Lead image from the Church’s media library.
[1] For some unconventional Book of Mormon geography theories, check out an older post on W&T blogger Mormon Heretic’s personal blog.
[2] No, the church is not hiding its “Book of Mormon Geography” section. It appears to be moving towards a system where topic entries are categorized into different groups. In the Gospel Library App under the “Topics” icon, you can access “Gospel Topics” (mainly doctrinal topics, contains the “Book of Mormon Geography” entry), “Gospel Topics Essays” (longer scholarly entries released in 2013-2015 on doctrinal and historical topics considered controversial), and “Church History Topics” (resources on historical topics related to the new Church History series, Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days).
[3] For an in-depth overview, check out “The Use of ‘Lamanite’ in Official LDS Discourse” by John-Charles Duffy in the Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 34 No. 1 (2008).
Discuss? I think this carefully worded mini-essay is another piece of evidence the standard Book of Mormon narrative is falling apart, slowly but surely. The article should have been titled “Book of Mormon Non-Geography.” The earlier Book of Mormon Translation essay watered down translation claims in the same way, expressing certainty about translation but ignorance about any of the particulars.
Geography. Historicity. Translation. Claims in these areas are all related or linked. Start walking back one of them and you are essentially walking back all of them. It isn’t hard to see that in ten or twenty years the “official” position of the Church will be that the Book of Mormon is inspired (but not translated) and spiritually uplifting (but not historical and therefore without a real-world geography).
Two observations. First, I actually love this line: ““Indigenous peoples occupy an interesting space in the LDS Church in which we are a fallen and promised people simultaneously.” I don’t want to demean or belittle the unique challenges that indigenous groups have faced and continue to face, but I feel this is descriptive of all of God’s children and is a theme seen throughout the scriptures. Adam and Eve were at the same time both fallen and promised. The Old Testament is largely a chronicle of the Israelites journey along the spectrum of fallen and promised. The Latter-day Saint doctrine of the Great Apostasy follows much of the same theme. Indeed, the Atonement of Christ is necessary because we are all fallen, and effective because we are all promised.
Second, DNA and ancestry are interesting concepts that people have a tendency to over-simplify. Some clickbait-listicle-worthy facts illustrate. It is estimated that 1 in 200 people on earth are direct descendants of Atilla the Hun. It is highly unlikely that any two people in the United States are further apart than 16th cousins. Basically, the reach of any persons ancestors reaches surprisingly far geographically when you go back only a few hundred years. It gets pretty wild when you go back a thousand or more. [Disclaimer: Please feel free to fact check this, as I’m pulling this from the “I read somewhere” part of my brain.] Supposing the Book of Mormon tells of actual people and events (which I believe), it would not be surprising to discover that the descendants of these populations were spread out across the continent by the time Europeans arrived a thousand years after the close of the Book of Mormon.
On the way home from last summer’s YM high adventure we drove through a Hopi Reservation. At a gas station in a largish town a newspaper had the headline in large font something similar to “Hopis are
Not Lamanites. Mormons leave us alone!”
I have a feeling that as science progresses we will find the BofM is less and less likely to be a literal history and gradually leaders will distance themselves from early church leader statements. I served a mission in Guatemala and I wish I hadn’t told so many people they were Lamanites and that the BofM happened right HERE.
I’m with Dave. B. I think what we’ll see over the next 10 – 20 years will be a gradual moving away from the historical model, making it untenable. I, too, think that in a couple of decades, we’ll get an admission of the B of M’s lack of historicity and then we’re likely to get gaslighted with something like, “We never said the B of M was historical,” which, of course, isn’t true. It’ll be interesting to see how the church dances around this. And does anyone else find it strange that a church that places so much emphasis on faith seems obsessed with “proving” or at least claiming the “truth” of its history? I mean for Pete’s sake, Joseph Smith didn’t even use the plates to “translate” the Book of Mormon, so given that significant absence in the narrative of the B of M’s origin, why do we go about insisting that the historical “facts” are absolutely true even though we have literally no evidence to support them? If we just went around saying “hey, even though we don’t have evidence to support our beliefs, we believe in certain things and we also believe that those things could help you be happier,” we’d be a lot more successful at reaching people, I think. Our origin story is so strange, it simply begs for documentary evidence to support it. And we don’t have any.
Prognostications that the Church is moving away from a historical Book of Mormon are absurd, and I put absolutely no stock in them.
Book of Mormon Central, FairMormon, and the Interpreter Foundation are all approved resources for seminary and institute students, and have, at times, been positively highlighted in official Church curriculum:
https://www.lds.org/new-era/2017/10/to-the-point/how-can-we-explain-things-in-the-book-of-mormon-that-ive-heard-didnt-exist-in-ancient-america?lang=eng&_r=1
https://www.lds.org/si/questions/gospel-study-resources?lang=eng
Elder Kevin W. Pearson of the Seventy, on assignment from the First Presidency and the Twelve, spoke at FairMormon last August affirming the Church’s support for apologetic organizations such as those named above:
https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2018/12/19/fairmormon-conference-podcast-19-elder-kevin-w-pearson-a-sacred-and-imperative-duty
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has consented to speak at Book of Mormon Central events, such as the jubilee celebration for John W. Welch back in 2017:
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/transcript-elder-holland-speaks-book-of-mormon-chiasmus-conference-2017
The Gospel Topics essays on seer stones, DNA, and geography come nowhere close to hinting at abandoning confidence in the Book of Mormon’s authenticity or historicity. In fact the whole point of these essays is to carve a faithful path through the problems raised by critics.
Backing away from fundamentalism and historical overreach is emphatically not the same thing as abandoning believe that the Book of Mormon is (A) authentic, (B) ancient, and (C) inspired. Things like the Church saying “eh, we should be focusing on the doctrine of Christ and not geography theories” is nowhere close to abandoning faith in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon altogether.
Case in point:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-01-30/the-book-of-mormon-is-filled-with-miracles-says-elder-stevenson-at-joseph-smith-memorial-devotional-48896
So yeah. Come talk to me when the apostles are sounding like the leadership of the Community of Christ in the mid-1990s. In the mean time, idle ProgMo wish-fulfillment about some kind of institutional abandonment of Book of Mormon historicity is, to put it mildly, ill-considered.
It bothers me when the Church “takes no position” in areas that it once took a position — or at least high-level LDS leaders did. When this happens, the Church is conveniently dismissing its past positions. The best example that comes to mind is Elder Holland stating relatively recently that the Church does not know why blacks could not have the priesthood. That is true today as far as I know. We don’t know. But we once “knew” if you were to believe previous statements made by Church leaders. So to say “we don’t know” is only half the story. Of course, this leads many to believe that some things we know today will be “unknown” in the future.
I went to sacrament meeting last Sunday. The first speaker was a Peruvian with a heavy accent. I’m not sure I totally understood his message, but I think he believes that the Inca archaeological ruins in his native Peru testify to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
After the meeting, I briefly talked to him. Our NGO “Playgrounds Everywhere” has a presence in the Cusco/Sacred Valley region of Peru, and I wanted to talk to him about Cusco and our organization. He wanted to talk to me about BofM archaeology. He had an old BoM that was illustrated with photographs of ancient American ruins. He showed me several of the photographs, one of an alleged baptismal font. He has a brother who is a BoM tour guide in Cusco.
I’m glad to see the Church leadership is making an effort to resolve the issue of the BoM and archaeological evidence.
Brother Sky,
If you (or Dave B) are willing to put money on your predictions, I’d be willing to take that bet. There is zero indication that the Church is anywhere close to abandoning the notion that the Book of Mormon events recount actual, literal events. In fact, this entry in Gospel Topics reiterates, “The internal consistency of these descriptions is one of the striking features of the Book of Mormon.”
“And does anyone else find it strange that a church that places so much emphasis on faith seems obsessed with “proving” or at least claiming the “truth” of its history?” This statement by the Church tends to refute rather than support the notion that the Church is obssessed with “proving” anything. And it’s been a long time since the Church had much of an official, institutional role in apologetics.
“If we just went around saying “hey, even though we don’t have evidence to support our beliefs, we believe in certain things and we also believe that those things could help you be happier,” we’d be a lot more successful at reaching people, I think.” If you can point me to a denomination or religious group has seen greater missionary success after adopting a similar approach, I’d love to see it.
It would be interesting to track trends, if any, for declarations of Manasseh lineage in patriarchal blessings – particularly among Pacific Islanders.
It is interesting to me how some of the reported reactions to some of these issues seem to depend upon the reacting person’s earlier understanding, however limited. E.g., Angelo Baca’s mother, Ida Yellowman comment in 2008[?] as to “all of a sudden”. Where did that come from? At least as long ago as the early 60s I was taught that Polynesians were or were likely Lamanites. Her comment on Hispanics “all of a sudden” being thought of Lamanites seems, relative to what I was taught, a confusion of categories — also in the early 60s at least I heard such claims, but only as to those western hemisphere Hispanics with some Native American ancestry.
Brother Sky, I suspect 10-20 years is too short a time frame, but a move by church leaders to renewed emphasis on the primary purpose of the BoM as a testimony of Christ (and further elucidation of the “fulness of the gospel”) in contrast to other BoM matters began at least a couple decades ago. E.g. RMN’s 1999 Ensign article.
Mary Ann, “Interestingly, the Church seems to be suggesting in its new Gospel Topics entry that positions of early leaders, including Joseph Smith himself, were merely opinion, not authoritative statements.” Yes. But I’m not sure “authoritative statement” is the right contrast to “opinion.” It would seem that over the years there have been a number of “authoritative statements” that were wrong. Could this be an opening toward the Church teaching more openly about fallibility of leaders and the doctrine, impression, inspiration, or revelation they report?
“Hey, even though we don’t have evidence to support our beliefs, we believe in certain things and we also believe that those things could help you be happier”
How does that differ from the church’s current approach?
Seems the church is pointedly eschewing evidence with their “take no position” stances and relying completely on belief.
Stephen,
Great collection of evidence that the Church isn’t close to abandoning Book of Mormon authenticity. I will suggest, however, that “ProgMo” is a term best left out of such discussions. I may be wrong, but I have only ever seen that term used as a pejorative, and I would classify it as uncharitable labelling along with terms like “TBM”.
Nice of BoM Central and other sites noted in Stephen’s post to fight the good fight. Yes, if confronted, the Church will energetically defend historicity — until it doesn’t. Just like with plural marriage and racial priesthood restrictions and the Book of Abraham translation. Some apologists think the Church will never waver on such a core position. Just like the Church would never waver on core positions like plural marriage and racial doctrine and translation — until it did.
The question isn’t whether the change will come, it’s more about the pace and timing of the changes. You might have noticed how the pace of change has quickened under Pres. Nelson. Elder McConkie’s “forget everything I said” admission ought to be a reminder to us all of how flexible Church positions are and how fallible leadership statements of “core” doctrines are. There is no core doctrine. Everything is on the table.
Leaders clarify that they don’t take a position on where the Book of Mormon occurred in the ancient Americas, but they still claim that it is historical and food occur somewhere in the ancient Americas. They’re not moving toward a full metaphorical understanding just yet.
“I have a feeling that as science progresses that we will find the BofM to be less and less likely…”
The only people to believe the BofM to be historically likely are already believing Mormons who continued to believe in spite of the emergence of all sorts of DNA studies that showed no signs of Middle Eastern ancestry.
I doubt that whatever scientific studies that emerge in the future that show the BofM to be even less likely are going to have much effect of the rank-and-file members. It seems however that the rise of the “nones” (those who claim no affiliation with organized religion) will continue to erode faithfulness of the younger generation.
Dave B., “There is no core doctrine.” This seems to me going further than can be reasonably supported. Perhaps core doctrine is what 3 Nephi 11:30-40 and related scriptures state is Christ’s doctrine. Though early teachings of Church leaders show a variety of understandings of the nature/personages of the Godhead, perhaps after Talmadge’s “Jesus the Christ” the current understanding has become core doctrine. See, the First Presidency statement at https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng. It would seem that none of that Godhead theology is falsifiable. It would seem that the basic message of the gospel (the good news of the atonement and salvation through Christ, etc., not the LDS expanded usage of that term) would have to be “core doctrine” without which the Church would cease to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are some other things that seem “core” to me, but why my perception should be any more reliable than BY’s or BRM’s before 1978, I don’t know. In any event, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121) Could all the “appendages” be outside “core doctrine”?
Question:
Which of these truth claims is “Mormonism” first and foremost founded on?
(A) Joseph Smith had a set of golden plates given to him by an ancient resurrected Nephite prophet that he translated by the gift and power of God.
(B) Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage.
(C) Brigham Young restricted the priesthood from being given to black men.
The Church has not and will not back away from Book of Mormon historicity or the historicity of Joseph Smith’s founding truth claims (the existence of the plates, the reality of Moroni, the divine nature of the translation, etc.). I am so confident about this that I am willing to stake my reputation and credibility as an expounder on contemporary “Mormon”-related matters.
(And to prove that I’m putting my money where my mouth is, if the Church does at some point officially abandon Book of Mormon historicity, I will be the first one out the doors.)
What it will do (and has been doing) is prune away some of the mistaken assumptions we may have had about what those truth claims fully entail, imply, and signify. It will also tighten and clean-up its institutional narrative in presenting those truth claims and rein in the sometimes irresponsible and overreaching (a hemispheric geography comes immediately to mind) pronouncements of past members and leaders.
There’s nothing scandalous about the new statement to anyone who is remotely familiar with the relevant history. The statements in the new Gospel Topics essay amount to nothing more than what Joseph F. Smith and Anthony W. Ivins were saying a century ago: geography theories might be interesting, but don’t let them become a distraction.
These red herrings about the priesthood and temple ban or plural marriage are just that. Again, show me anything from current Latter-day Saint apostles that come anywhere close to what the leaders of the Community of Christ were saying about the Book of Mormon in the 1990s when it actually did officially back away from claims of the historicity of the same.
First person to do that I’ll buy them a soda of their choosing next time they’re in Utah County.
At Keepapitchinin, Ardis Parshall points out that the Church’s new statement on Book of Mormon geography is consistent with an official statement from 1890 on the same topic, written by George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency. Her post is worth reading:
http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2019/01/30/book-of-mormon-geography-redux/
I’m not a fan of hot debates about Book of Mormon geography and historicity. These questions can be interesting, but they too easily distract many people from the most important things about the book. In my view, they are not essential to a testimony of the Book of Mormon.
I think it should be clear that this new statement is not a sign of any impending changes in the Church’s official position on Book of Mormon geography and historicity. It’s business as usual on this subject: a measured, traditional position that distances the Church from the zealots on all sides of these peripheral issues.
Stephen, the Church backed off of polygamy, and that was once so core that Church leaders pretty much universally practiced it, taught that it was superior to the wicked world’s preference for monogamy, and were willing to go to prison or into hiding rather than give it up. Yet they eventually did. I think you could be right that the GAs won’t soon back off on BoM historicity, but it’s not like major core foundational ideas haven’t been discarded before.
Russell M. Nelson (October 2018): “Unfortunately, many who hear the term Mormon may think that we worship Mormon. Not so! We honor and respect that great ancient American prophet.[footnote] [footnote]Mormon was one of the four major writers of the Book of Mormon, the others being Nephi, Jacob, and Moroni. All were eyewitnesses of the Lord, as was its inspired translator, the Prophet Joseph Smith.” (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng)
“ancient American prophet” “inspired translator”. Man, sounds like President Nelson could cave to a non-literal Book of Mormon any day now.
I am with Dave B and Brother Sky. In this and so many other things it feels to me like the church leadership is doing a version of Micheal Jackson’s moonwalk.. In one way it looks like forward progress, all the while walking back previous beliefs (or you can call them teachings/understandings/doctrine/etc.)..
And kudos to Mary Ann for a great write up on the topic!
Stephen, To some the important part of the first of your list of 3 truth claims is “Joseph Smith … translated [whatever that means] [the Book of Mormon] by the gift and power of God.” To them which parts, if any, of his story and of the BoM are historical is not particularly relevant to their testimonies of the truth of the BoM or the prophetic calling of JS or of TCOJCOLDS being [a part of] the church of Christ.
I don’t know or care anything about your “reputation and credibility as an expounder on contemporary ‘Mormon’-related matters”. Stake it where you like. But while I also don’t see the Church backing away from claims of historical Nephites and Nephite prophets and gold plates, I am unwilling to commit to abandon my faith and community if it were to do so. That sort of talk reminds me too much of those who threatened to be out the door if the Church ever granted priesthood and temple privileges to Blacks –some left; some didn’t — even though the priesthood/temple ban was much less, if at all, foundational. On the other hand, your position seems fairly safe ; I’m guessing you and I will be gone to the after-life before the Church ever officially abandoned BoM historicity.
I am another one who sees it like Dave B. It is just a matter of time.
I’m chuckling at Stephen providing multiple sources and illustrations clearly indicating the Church is not backing away from authenticity claims for the Book of Mormon, while Dave B., Brother Sky, and Happy Hubby make generalizations based on what they “think” and “feel”, all while presumably rooted in a lack of evidence generally for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. We each value evidence differently, I suppose.
I’m with Stephen. If the church ever admits that the Book of Abraham is anything but a literal translation of what was written on the papyrus, I am out of here.
While we are having this conversation, my bishop shared a passage in ward council about King Noah fleeing Gideon, and wondered about the accuracy in the text because the picture of King Noah in the blue BOM show an obese King Noah who would not be able to flee. That’s right he wondered aloud how accurate the text was, because of a drawing. This is where a lot of members are right now.
I wonder if there are any Q12 or Q70 that do not believe in a historical BOM? Does BH Roberts count for a pop?
Stephen, I am among those who foresee a day when Church leaders back away from BoM historicity in earnest, but today, tomorrow and next week are not that day. You are correct that President Nelson and many leaders loudly proclaim the reality if Nephi, Mormon, and the rest. But I find it peculiar that this “pruning” of which you speak happened only in the aftermath of DNA studies (which may or may not tell the whole story), serious arachaelogical expeditions, and linguitistic research into native languages. Yes, a few previous leaders have cautioned us about making conclusions about Native American ancestry and BoM geography, but those cautions were largely drowned out by sweeping assertions about the history and destiny of the native peoples of North and South America that were accepted as fact by faithful members.
My point is not to complain about leaders deciding to do the pruning, it’s that they only collectively agreed to do the pruning after someone else came along with a machete and hacked most of the branches off.
Been reading the comments. Steven is right, folks. ProgMos getting their hopes up that the church is moving to a metaphorical BOM are going to have them dashed over the years. The church has way to much invested in a historical BOM. This recent announcement is nothing more than a reiteration of what they’ve already been saying. Plus, in the statement the church leaders reaffirmed certain belief in a historical BOM. Sorry ProgMos, the ex-Mormon subreddit is waiting patiently for you when you’re ready.
“Something often overlooked in these Book of Mormon geography debates are the implications for those who have been told the Book of Mormon is the story of their ancestors.”
This is so important, and I’m glad Mary Ann’s OP progresses to what I think is the most important question here. To people like Stephen, what is the point of logging so many hours into questions surrounding the ancient peoples of the Book of Mormon if you don’t also consider the equally difficult (and perhaps more worthwhile) questions surrounding those peoples’ contemporary heirs?
Until the dudes (someone should write about the womanless world that is Mormon apologetics) at Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, or FAIR conferences can learn to look at the bigger picture and disrupt the images of cureloms and cimiters and chiasmus and precolumbian horses running in an endless loop through their minds, I’ll continue to view them as a group of high-strung obsessives incapable of asking (and much less answering) some of the more pressing spiritual and intellectual questions that arise from the Book of Mormon’s contents.
“I wonder if there are any Q12 or Q70 that do not believe in a historical BOM?”
John Hamer is a seventy and Lachlin MacKay is an apostle in Community of Christ and they don’t believe in BOM historicity.
What percentage of active members even care about this? When was the last time a talk like this was given https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/07/of-royal-blood?lang=eng
I am going to do an unofficial poll this Sunday and ask 10 random people in my ward if they believe in the heartland model, mesoamerican model, or the hemispheric model. I am betting that none of them will even know what I am talking about and when I describe them it will be split 50/50 with the hemispheric and mesoamerican.
I agree that the church is not going to back away from a historic BOM. Can you imagine the fall out of such a move? It would be cool if another one of the records of Christ’s visits to some other group of scattered sheep came forth (3 Nephi 16), but this time was found by archeologists. That would make a lot of exmos pretty nervous. I understand conservative members angst with “progmos”, but I for one love all the changes that have been made and this progmo community has more power than they are given credit.
This is a serious question, but one that I can’t
get myself to ask without voicing some disdain: what good is an Amerindian to a Book of Mormon apologist if they aren’t long dead, found buried in the earth clutching a steel weapon and riding atop a skeleton that can be remotely construed as being that of a horse?
This is a really fascinating discussion. I’glad for both perspectives as well. Stephen brings up a lot of great points, but my money is on the Church moving further and further away from anything that is easier to prove false than true. People are leaving the church in droves. The church has seen its smallest years for growth in its entire history. It’s a numbers game at a certain point and the church will do what it needs to do to grow and thrive. Polygamy was a foundational doctrine, still is. Section 132 is very clear about the fact that Polygamy is I’ve of the things restored by Joseph Smith and is necessary for entrance into the highest celestial Glory. This was taught as a foundational doctrine for decades. Until this doctrine threatened the growth and security of the church. Then polygamy was no longer a requirement for salvation and was no longer a core doctrine (except it’s still in the scriptures, we just skip over the polygamy verses in lessons on the new and everlasting covenant). The internet makes it incredibly easy to get a good picture of how the Book of Mormon came about. And more and more historical research is done every year with fantastic sources. As it gets harder and harder to defend the Book of Mormon as a historical document and more and more people leave because of “feeling lied to and betrayed” I can see Book of Mormon historicity becoming less of a core doctrine. Mormons 100 years from now will say “oh those Mormons that thought the book fo Mormon was true were just a product of their time. Then the internet happened.”
Compare the statement on BoM geography to what the Church used to say that was produced under the direction of the First Presidency and Q12, and what I shared unknowingly on my mission.
Ancient America Speaks (1972)
A lot of unsupported assumptions in these comments.
First, that this statement is substantively new. As has already been pointed out, this statement reflects statements going back as far as George Q. Cannon in 1890.
Second, that these kinds of statements are in response to DNA evidence. In 1984, years before the Human Genome Project even started, John Sorensen said, “One problem some Latter-day Saint writers and lecturers have had is confusing the actual text of the Book of Mormon with the traditional interpretation of it. For example, a commonly heard statement is that the Book of Mormon is “the history of the American Indians.” This statement contains a number of unexamined assumptions—that the scripture is a history in the common sense—a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that “the” American Indians are a unitary population; and that the approximately one hundred pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scripture could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere. When unexamined assumptions like these are made, critics respond in kind, criticizing not the ancient text itself, but the assumptions we have made about it.”
Third, that a limited geography model implies that Native Americans are not descended from Lehi. As Simon Southerton, one of the leading critics of the Book of Mormon based on DNA, put it: “In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later.” [This statement was followed by a juvenile quip.] See the FAIRMormon article on the subject for more information as well as some interesting quotes from population researchers on the notion that if anyone living 2000 years ago has any living descendants, then we are virtually all descendants of that person (assuming contact between ancestral populations).
Tim,
I’m too young to have had experience with the video you posted, but while it has some problems (e.g. it tends toward parallelomania) I was actually struck by how careful it was to not say that any of the examples shown were actually the Nephites or Lamanites. It seemed to me to be arguing against the false assumption that pre-Colombian peoples were uncivilized savages living in huts and caves in an effort to demonstrate the plausibility of the Book of Mormon taking place in one of (or all of) those locations. It seems intentionally ambiguous as to which one. Granted, I skipped over some bits, so I’d be interested if you have particular quotes that you think conflict with the statement in the Gospel Topics entry.
This is not good for Book of Mormon (BoM) literalists. The keystone is cracking.
Main stream orthodox Mormons* are to continue to be taught Joseph Smith got the doctrines of the BoM right and that BoM people literally existed in history somewhere in the Americas.
All accounts of Joseph Smith telling his associates of any location in the Northern States where they lived are former BoM lands are not to be discussed in church.
All accounts of academic studies done by the best and brightest amongst us, even at our leading university BYU, that bolster plausibility of BoM events as actual history but in Mesoamerica (or elsewhere in the Americas) are not to be discussed in church.
Hmm. Either Joseph Smith got the doctrine and geography right, or he got the doctrine right but not the geography. However, we are not going to talk about it. Does this not suggest to the inquiring mind that maybe he got them both wrong? (Not allowed to be discussed in church either.) Why did Joseph Smith spin so many yarns to so many people with great confidence that turn out to be at best unfit for discussion in church or at worst flat-out wrong? How could the best work of our top academic minds in this field be unfit for church? Because collectively it doesn’t make sense in the final analysis?
I suppose this was inevitable. A wiki article on the topic lists about as many different geographies as the number of known plural wives of Joseph Smith (over 30). If none of these geographies is compelling and convincing enough to discount the others, then perhaps none of them are correct. And sooner believe Joseph was a monogamist than believe any of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Book_of_Mormon_geographical_setting.
***
How do we define the boundaries between doctrine, history and geography in the BoM? Why was so much of the BoM narrative laboriously engraved upon golden plates and preserved for centuries to be miraculously translated as the keystone of a new religion and is no longer worthy of discussion in church?
This Mormon boy (oops) really can’t get beyond 2 Nephi 1 when considering these last questions. How could nearly all our trusted and beloved church leaders for over a century get this chapter so wrong? Can this passage and many others like unto it even be read out loud in church? I guess I am just going to have to skip this chapter. Ignoring, befuddling and obfuscating disturbing information is a root cause of the so called faith crisis which is really a truth crisis. But let’s not talk about that either.
Let’s definitely not tell our Lamanite members that they might not be Lamanites. How many tens and hundreds of thousands of missionaries for how many decades were wrong about that as we spread our gospel message across Latin America and Oceania? That message resulted in the conversion of 50 to 60% of the peoples of Samoa and Tonga, highest % anywhere any time on a national scale. And it was taught to the Japanese people in the early 1970’s by myself and hundreds of other missionaries. (We had kotochrome slides, no video, strikingly similar message on a Nixon-era tape as Tim’s video above.) Let the name Hagoth become as obscure as the name of Abinadom among us. There is no other way.
*Please chant with me three times for absolution “victory for Satan” in place of “Mormon” in each instance above, except of course when “Mormon” is preceded by the couplet “Book of”.
Sarcasm.. the easiest tool of the intellectually weak.
Thanks to all for the comments. I’ll address some common themes.
Having an official position of neutrality on Book of Mormon Geography is not a new thing for the Church as an institution, as Ardis Parshall pointed out with the 1890 quote at Keepapitchinin (thanks to Loursat for pointing that out!). The “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies” Gospel Topics Essay and last October’s response by the Church History Department to Heartlanders both cite a statement in the 2012 Book of Mormon Seminary manual very similar to the new entry – we don’t know the location other than it took place in the Americas.
There are unique things about this new Gospel Topics entry. First, it’s easily available and directed to the church as a whole (not hidden away in a seminary manual). Second, it requests that geography not be discussed in church settings (no more special firesides about Book of Mormon Lands). Third, it directly quotes Joseph Smith and suggests that what he said was not doctrinal but a matter of opinion. As JR pointed out, that’s a bit more prophetic fallibility than we are used to.
Historicity – the Church definitely still believes that the Book of Mormon is based on real people and real events. The only significant movement I’ve seen recently on the apologetic side is more church-employed historians or BYU professors feeling comfortable with noting KJV and New Testament phrasing in the Book of Mormon. While we may be getting some nuance in the translation aspect (especially with Royal Skousen’s work) I don’t see the church even close to giving up historicity anytime in the next 50 years.
What irks me is that people think pointing to 1890 statements of neutrality somehow absolves leaders and members of any responsibility for telling people they were descendants of Nephites and Lamanites. You can read a 1992 Church News article that details all the statements church leaders have made regarding Hagoth as an ancestor of pacific islanders. The conclusion? “In conclusion it seems fair to state that although the Church has no official, published declaration on the origin of the Polynesians, there have been enough semi-official statements by prophets of the Lord to leave little doubt that the Church believes that the Polynesians are direct blood relatives of Lehi’s colony and that Hagoth’s lost ships provide at least one connection between the Americas and Polynesia. This is further supported by patriarchal blessings given to the members of the Church among these people and by oral traditions.” Again, this was 1992. https://www.thechurchnews.com/archive/1992-07-25/hagoth-believed-to-be-link-between-polynesia-and-peoples-of-america-4939
Another Church News article in 1999 affirms that “Children of Lehi” are scattered from Alaska to Patagonia as well as on the Pacific Islands. https://www.thechurchnews.com/archive/2000-01-01/book-of-mormon-has-direct-message-for-children-of-lehi-16899
At the dedicatory prayers of Mexican temples even as late as 2000, you get reference to “Father Lehi”: “We invoke Thy blessings upon this nation of Mexico where so many of the sons and daughters of Father Lehi dwell.” https://www.thechurchnews.com/archive/2010-03-16/tuxtla-gutierrez-mexico-temple-35343
Even if the church has an “official” position of neutrality, you can’t fault members for taking statements in official news outlets and temple dedicatory prayers at face value.
DSC, it’s that assumption (contact between ancestral populations) that can be called into question.
Dsc;
You are so full of, ah excrement, in your last comment to Tim. You totally crack me up.
I sat there for literally hundreds of these lessons using this presentation and in spite of your clever parsing of words, we were not that refined. The message was simple and clear: solid archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon in central and south America. We testified of it hundreds of times with language on about the third grade level if that.. Don’t put this saddle back on bumbling missionaries. It came from the top and was consistent across half the world over many decades. It was an expression of the hemispheric geography: Book of Mormon lands extended from Greenland to Alaska to Chile to New Zealand and all Isles of the Pacific including Japan. Not which- all. As in A L L.
And be careful around converts from anywhere in this quarter of the world with your smart remarks, all of you out there of his ink. Because they believe and it is important to them that they are Lamanites, peoples of the Book. Our white European imperalism and technology may have allowed us to rule this fallen world for a time. But in the end they are the true children of Israel and we Europeans are the adopted gentile step-children. This is what my Japanese fiance told me when my parents and bishop thought I should not mix our blood-line (down) with another race.
People over doctrine or geography? That is a huge question.
Dsc, you appear to be painting a picture of a Church whose leadership never really bought into the hemispherical model. If true, I strongly disagree with your assertion. No one disputes that the limited geography model has been around for over a century (at least), but that does not mean it was ever widely accepted by most leaders and faithful members or held out as the prevailing theory on Book of Mormon geography.
Also, it’s a bit disingenuous to say that no changes were made in response to DNA research. We don’t have the behind-the-scenes discussion and decision-making, but the statement about Lamanites as the prinicpal ancestors of the American Indians in the introduction to the Book of Mormon was inserted in 1981 and not removed until 2006. If leadership truly subscribed to the limited geography theory as you suggest, why did that statement ever make it into the introduction? It’s certainly possible DNA and the change to the introduction were 100% unrelated, but I have faith (not doubt!) that it wasn’t just a coincidence.
Mike,
The hallmark of a weak arguments include making things personal, elevating personal experience above documentary evidence, stating you have evidence and not citing it, and sarcasm. I’ll invite you to examine your own arguments accordingly.
Not a Cougar,
I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that the Church as a whole and leaders of the Church didn’t wholeheartedly believe in a hemispheric model. I think its clear that President Kimball believed that Native Americans up and down the Americas were descended from Lehi to the exclusion of all others (although I think “to the exclusion of all others” is the only part of that belief that the Church no longer takes seriously). What I am suggesting is that people have questioned those assumptions for a long time, and that even in the height of common acceptance of the hemispheric model, the Church shied away from officially proclaiming it. Further, those assumptions are not based in the text of the Book of Mormon or any other canonized source, so we shouldn’t be surprised when we as Latter-day Saints collectively shift our assumptions based on new information and better analysis.
Also, I don’t think that DNA wasn’t at least a factor in the 2006 revision of the Book of Mormon introduction, but I don’t think it was the primary motivation. As noted in the Duffy article cited by Mary Ann, “While the DNA controversy is a contributing factor, I argue that other considerations play a role as well, including changing attitudes toward race and new administrative challenges created by the Church’s international growth. Indeed, the shift away from Lamanite identification in Church leaders’ discourse predates the DNA controversy. This pattern suggests that the future of LDS discourse about Lamanites may be affected, but will probably not be determined, by discussions regarding genetics and geography.”
BofM geography is a hobby, and one that I don’t consider a worthwhile use of one’s time and energy. Faithful members should ask themselves: If it turns out that the BofM is actually a work of fiction and never really happened anywhere, would it’s message still be valuable to you?
There are a number of niche for-profit tour operators in Central and South America catering to a Mormon clientele, who each claim to know exactly where the events of the BofM “really happened”. If the Church was serious about backing away from a literalist/historical/geographical narrative, they would be taking steps to shut these guys down, but it doesn’t appear that they are. Meanwhile, affluent Latter-day Saints continue to travel to Mexico and Guatemala and Peru to have their testimonies “strengthened” with dubious or conflicting information about ancient civilizations.
Mike, I think your comment to Dsc is in bad taste, becoming personal in nature. Please keep it “above the belt”, so to speak.
I’m curious of opinions on the implications of the numerous references to the Native Americans of the US as Lamanites contained in the D&C and other revelations. Was it just Joseph’s bias/opinion leaking through, masquerading as God’s? If so, who is the arbiter of which texts are the bias/error of Joseph and which are God’s words? Does it just boil down to: God’s will = current leaders’ statements?
I’m genuinely curious of the perspectives of others.
Mary Ann,
“It’s that assumption (contact between ancestral populations) that can be called into question.” I don’t quite follow. It’s pretty well established that Pre-Columbian Americans had extensive trade routes that connected people from modern-day Chile to southern Canada. If Lehi and his family settled in an already-populated continent, his descendants would likely have reached out as far as people had contact with each other over the course of 2000 years, and due to the nature of population dynamics, all or nearly all of those people would be his descendants, even if they are also the descendants of totally unrelated people. (Again, the FAIRMormon article on the topic goes into more detail).
Although I can see the relevance of things like geographic models to the strength of the connection between the peoples of the Book of Mormon and modern populations, narrowing the geography weakens the argument that Lehi and his family were the exclusive ancestors of modern Native Americans, not that he is an ancestor of modern Native Americans. That, however, has long been a self-evident reality Hispanic Latter-day Saints whose ancestry is largely also European. In other words, it affects the dubious concept of “pure-blood”, which is a concept worth dropping for a whole host of non-DNA-related reasons.
Can’t tell if my original comment is stuck in moderation or just got lost by wordpress so here it is again. I apologize if it double-posts!
The thing that strikes me as odd about the church’s current position is how it treats Joseph Smith. So Joseph Smith “translated” (whatever that means) a historical record by looking into a stone in a hat, dug the plates up practically in his back yard, TALKED TO at least one Nephite ( and many contemporary church leaders said he was visited by many other Nephites), and clearly believed that native americans were lamanites, BUT THAT EVERYTHING OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL TRANSLATION WAS ALL HIS OPINION? That makes no sense to me. He himself says he was told these things BY MORONI (I’ll link to an ensign article at the end with a bunch of citations) but now somehow it’s just opinion? So to those who are saying the church will never retreat on Book of Mormon historicity: the church is ALREADY in retreat and has been for a couple decades now! We’ve just been moving the goalposts on how historicity is actually defined. And this leaves you arguing that Joseph Smith either lied about angels or was lied to by angels, or exaggerated or whatever. But the historical record really doesn’t leave room to claim that it was just his opinion. I really don’t see how you get around that. And the church’s current position basically ignores all of these statements.
Here’s an ensign article with lot of relevant quotes: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/08/book-of-mormon-personalities-known-by-joseph-smith?lang=eng
Here are a few relevant excerpts (but there are a lot of gems :)):
In later life as well, he seldom elaborated on the events of those days. (See History of the Church, 1:220.) One rare exception appears in his letter to John Wentworth:
“I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me: I was also told where there was deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgement of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty, and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22nd of September A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands.”
———————
John Taylor amplified:
“He learned by communication from the heavens, from time to time, of the great events that should transpire in the latter days. He understood things that were past, and comprehended the various dispensations and the designs of those dispensations. He not only had the principles developed, but he was conversant with the parties who officiated as the leading men of those dispensations, and from a number of them he received authority and keys and priesthood and power for the carrying out of the great purposes of the Lord in the last days, who were sent and commissioned specially by the Almighty to confer upon him those keys and this authority.” (Journal of Discourses, 20:174–75.)
Elder John Taylor also identified “Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, and others of the ancient Prophets who formerly lived on this Continent” as visitors. (Journal of Discourses, 17:374.) Speaking at Ephraim, Utah, in 1879, Elder Taylor said the Nephite twelve disciples also came to Joseph.
“The principles which he had, placed him in communication with the Lord, and not only with the Lord, but with the ancient apostles and prophets; such men, for instance, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Jesus and the Father, and the apostles that lived on this continent as well as those who lived on the Asiatic continent. He seemed to be as familiar with these people as we are one with another.” (Journal of Discourses, 21:94.)
———————-
Elder Orson Pratt, in a personal letter to John Christensen of Brigham City, testified:
“The prophet often received visits from Nephi, Moroni, Peter, James, John (the beloved), John (the Baptist), Elijah, Moses, the three Nephites, etc. etc.”
As an over-60 member of the church, and having seen many many changes just in my lifetime in the church, I am wondering where this particular conversation will go in the future. Like Tim above, I spent dozens if not hundreds of hours showing the ancient america speaks filmstrip (complete with my 1970’s portable projector and cassette player bought from the mission office) produced by the church. The point was to try and convince prospective converts that this was where the Book of Mormon events took place and that the BoM was an historical document. They did try to cover their bases a little, in that it was caveat’d by Dr. Cheesman when showing a “pool” that he asked, “could this be an acient baptismal font?” However, the implication is clear that he was saying that this civilation of hundreds of thousands were the nephites/lamanites. All the discussion of “Queztlecoatl” was leading to the BoM appearance of Jesus. However, all the archealogical evidence gathered then and now even 40 years later does not support the “nephite” or “lamanite” culture described in the BoM. The title page of the BoM was changed from the “….principle ancestors” to “….among the ancestors…”. Someone in the church was hoping that someday, somewhere, evidence would be found, but none has come forward, and in fact, the evidence (DNA for example)that has come forward has basically proved to the contrary. Think about it, when JS sent missionaries to the “lamanites” in the early days of the church, did he send them to Mexico/South America or just to the western frontier of the US, not too many miles from where they were?
The problem is that you can go to the old world and actually see the cities and artifacts that discussed in the bible. There is a way to historically at least prove the people lived there. Whether the historical record is accurate is a slightly different story, but I can at least say this where this place was and that was where that place was. There are also places talked about in the Bible that are also unknown to modern scholars, which at least starts the question of the veracity of all stories.
I have also seen the narrative change on the “translation” of the BoM significantly. I was clearly taught in the 60’s and 70’s that JS used the Urim and Thummim to translate with. I may have heard a passing reference at some point to the seer stone, but that was never even close to the main dialogue. Now, we talk of the seer stone being primarily used and that the plates were not even used or in the same room to actually “translate”.
My point is that while I don’t see the church totally backing away from historicity of the BoM, I do see them soft-selling it more, where the gospel content is important (as it probably should be), not the historical nature of it. However, in a church that leans so heavily on history as part of its truth claim, it is getting more difficult to do with the BoM. While a lot of the content of the BoM is based in teaching, a greater majority is a story of some people that lived here….somewhere….we don’t know where…that lived 19th century christianity….but it’s all true!
I see many things trying to be sent down the “memory hole” by the church by just less and less emphasis and discussion. As older people like myself die off, the new narrative takes it’s place, and with no discussion of past teachings, it all becomes the new norm. The good news is that the internet helps in the church not being able to try and tell a new story and claim that it was always the story.
Cody,
I’ve made far too many comments on this post already, but you asked what I think is a very good question that merits an answer. My take is that the Lord was communicating that the Native Americans were heirs to the covenant God made with the people described in the Book of Mormon, in much the same way people emphasize connections between modern Jews and ancient Israelites, despite the fact that most (all?) modern Jews have many non-Israelite ancestors.
Mary Ann, Thanks for your work on this. I haven’t noticed that anyone thinks that “pointing to 1890 statements of neutrality somehow absolves leaders and members of any responsibility for telling people they were descendants of Nephites and Lamanites.” Who is it that thinks that someone expressing opinions as authoritative truth is somehow not responsible for doing so?
I would have thought the recent official statement merely an attempt to quell portraying the heartland, hemispheric, or mesoamerican, etc. theories as officially church-sanctioned and the resulting disputes among members when people do that. Perhaps it was motivated by growing awareness of adamant proponents of one or another of those theories claiming authority and using Church facilities to promote their theories in firesides. All in all, not so different from the following reminder:
“The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution. Organic evolution, or changes to species’ inherited traits over time, is a matter for scientific study. Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution.” https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng
Dsc, just because an object travels long distances among a trade route doesn’t mean people are traveling long distances. I definitely agree you have interconnected trade routes throughout the American continents, I just don’t agree that it reflects a proportionate amount of population mixing. Just because I find shells from the coast of California in a Fremont site in Salt Lake City, it doesn’t mean that someone from California trudged all the way over to Utah in 500 AD. Does that make sense? The shell likely passed through many hands to get to Utah, so I wouldn’t necessarily expect population mixing showing up between Southern Californian indigenous peoples and those of the Salt Lake Valley.
To be upfront, I’m fine with BofM historicity, and I’m definitely fine with the idea that an ancestor in the distant past can have descendants today that don’t contain any of their DNA. I have no problem with saying there definitely could be descendants of Lehi alive today. I just really struggle with the reasoning that if some of his descendants happened to survive the disease epidemics and genocide from European contact, that we can find them from the tip of Alaska all the way down to Patagonia and on all the isles of the Pacific (including Japan and New Zealand). That line of thinking just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m relatively okay with the line of thinking that “Lamanite” can be redefined as more a metaphorical thing, just meaning all those indigenous Americans who were not Nephites (regardless of their ancestry), but even then I would want that to be made a bit more clear by Church leadership. I think that this new Gospel Topics entry has made clear that the Church considers any previous statements as opinions, which is helpful, but unless it’s broadcast more publicly, it still allows all the folk beliefs to continue. (Like when they officially disavowed all the racist reasoning for the priesthood ban in the Gospel Topics essay, but then never really bothered to publicize the essay so that regular members would be aware they did that.)
It seems to me the hallmark of a bad argument is to ignore the evidence, or twist and contort facts into something more convenient. Tobacco is healthy and OJ is innocent. But I guess a winning argument is better than a good one.
To my uneducated mind, it seems clear to me from the Doctrine and Covenants who the Lamanites are.
And what it means to those who claim a Lamanite identity, is not for me to say.
I remember watching the “Ancient America Speaks” film a couple times as a teen in the occasional fireside. It was quite exciting.
As far as tying archeological references to Lamanites and Nephites, the dialogue at 18:42 comes pretty close: “The Book of Mormon also speaks of continued warfare between these two groups. The actuality of this is borne out by the numerous fortifications and weapons found in Mexico, Central, and South America”
Earlier at 18:11 the commentator (Paul R Cheesman) also stated, why standing at Chichén Itzá: ” Why did these great civilizations die out? Why did the people leave? The Book of Mormon gives us some clues”
On Christ’s visit to the America’s (19:53): “So great was the impact of Christ visit to this continent that His story was repeated and handed down by word of mouth for centuries”
I don’t fault the makers of the film for producing it. They were acting on their faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. If it happened, after-all, why not be on the look-out for evidence? The general membership of the church and it’s leaders were certainly keyed into the hemispherical model of the Book of Mormon during that time-frame (and really until recently). I ate this stuff up and was an early subscriber to FARMS. I read John L Sorenson’s book an “An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon” a couple of times. Even still, I never considered any of the 20th century General Authorities explicitly endorsing the hemispheric model from a revelatory sense. All my readings considered it in terms of plausibility.
I do think this part of the church’s statement is remarkable: “Church members are asked not to teach theories about Book of Mormon geography in Church settings but to focus instead on the Book of Mormon’s teachings and testimony of Jesus Christ and His gospel.” This may be powerful enough to steer members from engaging in further study of the subject even outside of church settings because it may be deemed no longer acceptable to be considered something a “faithful” member does. But that wasn’t the case for the past century.
In about 1955, Thomas Ferguson, a co-founder (with Milton R. Hunter of the first Council of the Seventy) of the New World Archaeological Foundation received five years of funding from the LDS Church and began to dig throughout Mesoamerica for evidence of the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. Howard W. Hunter, an apostle, served on the board of trustees. I think it was in 1964 when Deseret Book published Milton R. Hunter’s “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.” At least those of us then in high school/seminary and our teachers took that book very seriously, however simplistically, as a summary and illustration of Mesoamerican archaeological evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon.
“There seem to be two logical and true conclusions at which we can arrive: first, the Lamanites were the progenitors of the American Indians; second, after the close of The Book of Mormon period, people from various other parts of the world came to the New World and intermingled their posterity with those of the Nephite-Lamanites. The result of this mixture of races is the American Indian of today.” (Pg. 214)
With a 70 pushing those conclusions, Church funding of the archaeological research, the Church sponsorship and use of the video Tim and others noted above, and the anonymous (but published by the Church) 1981 addition to the BoM intro claiming that Lamanites were the “principal ancestors of the American Indians”, it would naturally seem to some that the current Official Statement retreats to the George Q. Cannon’s position of 1890, but not that the Church’s position has remained the same from at least 1890 until now.
Today I’m more intrigued with “The Malay Theory. This theory says it would have been much easier for Nephi to travel a 4000 mile journey to the Malay Peninsula than a 16000 mile journey in open seas to the Americas. The author notes better language similarities, better DNA evidence, and other evidences to support his ideas, while clearly noting that he is not sure how the plates got to NY.”
https://mormonheretic.org/2009/04/09/a-radically-different-book-of-mormon-geography-theory/
But then my grandson has also got me intrigued with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 😊
Cody, that’s a good question about the D&C. It reminds me of the reasoning that the Biblical Job must’ve been a historical figure, because God mentions him in D&C 121:10. But it seems to me that in studying other scriptures I’ve learned (1) God speaks to people according to their own understanding, and (2) it may not be wise to take everything literally. I don’t see that Lamanite designation as necessarily definitive. As to who the arbiter is on defining which statements from leaders are them versus God, theoretically it’s the Holy Ghost, but everyone seems to hear him differently.
Having spent the majority of my professional career in Marketing, Branding, Market Research and Advertising, I’m personally convinced that the leadership of the LDS Church is actively (and yes, very carefully – over time) re-branding it’s doctrines and beliefs. I perceive that some of these folks are pretty savvy from a corporate point of view and are certainly playing a “long game”. The “short-game” has little to no upside benefits – even if they are slowly, but surely losing members as they move along. The flow of those leaving (I believe) would turn into a flood if the changes we’re discussing today – were to happen right away. I believe President Nelson is an active participant in the re-branding as noted in his comment below:
Russell M. Nelson:
“There are some things the Book of Mormon is not,” President Nelson said. “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.”
Secondly, I believe that anyone who is actively debating (either publicly or privately) the “location” of the Book of Mormon characters should watch the following program; which aired late last year. The results and outcomes of this study (so far) are -in my mind – pretty stunning. And honestly, have brought some comfort to my mind as to what is real and what is not.
“The First Face in America” – PBS
SCIENCE
On an unlucky day 13,000 years ago, a slightly built, malnourished teenager missed her footing and tumbled to the bottom of a 100-foot pit deep inside a cave in Mexico’s Yucatan. Rising seas flooded the cave and, until recently, cut it off from the outside world. Then a team of divers chanced upon her nearly complete and astonishingly well-preserved skeleton alongside fossils of extinct Ice Age beasts such as giant sloths and saber-tooth tigers. NOVA takes you on a spectacular and risky underwater expedition to recover her bones and explores one of science’s most controversial riddles: the origins of the First Americans. Intricate detective work reveals that the young woman’s bones are among the earliest known human remains in the Americas. What drove her to venture nearly a mile underground in the vast cave? Where did her people come from, and why does she look so distinct from today’s Native Americans? From the stunning Mexico cave to the wilderness of the Yukon, from the genetics lab to the latest in forensics, NOVA pursues tantalizing new clues that are rewriting the story of the forgotten first people of the Americas.
Nicely said Mary Ann.
What is interesting is that the BoM refers to other peoples and that they all count as Lehi’s Seed regardless of where they came from much like we are all children of Abraham regardless of bloodlines.
Interesting to go back to the actual text.
Thanks, Dsc, Mary Ann, and Stephen Marsh.
Additionally, I was always taught throughout my years that “the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple”. Even in the early days of “The Church” John Taylor said the following:
“In reality, the fact that a principle can be understood even by a child is proof of its power. President John Taylor said, “It is true intelligence for a man to take a subject that is mysterious and great in itself and to unfold and simplify it so that a child can understand it” (“Discourse,” Deseret News, Sept. 30, 1857, 238). Far from diminishing its impact, purity and simplicity of expression allow the Holy Spirit to witness with greater certainty to the hearts of men.”
“During His earthly ministry, Jesus constantly compared the simplicity and authenticity of His teachings to the tortuous logic of the Pharisees and other doctors of the law. They tried time and again to test Him with sophisticated questions, but His replies were always crystal clear and childlike in their simplicity.”
“Rejection of the principle of simplicity and clarity has been the origin of many apostasies, both collective and individual.”
As I’ve watched Google and the Internet turn “The Church” and it’s history into a mass of confusion, obsfucation by its’ leaders, mental gymnastics by its’ apologists….I’ve come to the conclusion that’s it’s just one huge hot mess! No wonder so many are simply focusing on Christ of the New Testament….or simply dumping it all.
To quote a great philosopher “just remember, it is not a lie if you believe it” George Costanza
I don’t think early leaders were purposefully leading people astray. They truly believed it and the Holy Ghost confirmed that belief.
Moroni is the dude I blame. All those conversations with Joseph Smith and he never once bothered to mention any details.
Sorry Doug. Your post just popped up in the middle of this thread. I didn’t mean to copy or steal your ideas about Moroni.
Yeah, my comment was stuck in moderator purgatory for a while (mostly because of a funny copy/paste error on my part I think! Thanks mods by the way!). This is what I really don’t understand. There are multiple comments by early church leaders, including Joseph Smith himself, that Joseph was told about the history of the people so you’d think he knew what he was talking about when making his numerous statements about the Nephites/Lamanites in North America. But as Bryant posted above, it seems like they’re hoping the memory hole will be effective and that people won’t remember those claims (published in the Ensign no less) and they can pretend it was only Joseph’s opinion. Kind of boggles the mind. To reiterate my buried point: the church already has moved away from points BoM historicity, saying they never will seems to be making a “no true scotsman” argument that “well, but not the historicity of this aspect of the BoM/translation” or whatever.
Mart Ann,
It’s not intuitive, but experts in this field (Joseph T. Chang, Douglas Rhode and Steve Olson) have calculated that the most recent common ancestor for all of humanity may be as recent as 300 B.C. That study was based on probabilities, not tracking actual lineages, but the point is that descendancy has a surprising reach. In other words, over centuries, a person’s descendants are likely to reach much farther than a seashell.
Doug, your post got me thinking about Moroni dedicating the site of the Manti Temple:
“Brigham Young announced the temple site 25 June 1875 and dedicated the site on 25 April 1877. Earlier that same morning, he had taken Warren S. Snow with him to the southeast corner of the temple site and told him, “Here is the spot where the Prophet Moroni stood and dedicated this piece of land for a Temple site, and that is the reason why the location is made here, and we can’t move it from this spot.”
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/03/the-manti-temple?lang=eng
For now, the church does have one specific geographic location tied to an ancient Nephite.
Dave C, must have just been his opinion 😉
“Native Americans were heirs to the covenant God made with the people described in the Book of Mormon, in much the same way people emphasize connections between modern Jews and ancient Israelites, despite the fact that most (all?) modern Jews have many non-Israelite ancestors.”
I guess I don’t understand this. In what sense is there something for Native Americans to inherit that every other person on the face of the planet who is baptized into the LDS church doesn’t inherit? What do modern Israelites inherit in a gospel sense for that matter?
Since Joseph Smith in his vision of the Celestial Kingdom saw his not dead parents there, I realize there is some leeway on literalness.
So it seems to me, the new story I’m hearing is that Lehi & co sailed to the semi-promised land and journeyed in the wilderness finding all manner of peoples and cities. And even though they made a special trip for Ishmael and his marriageable daughters, endogamy gets ditched and genes go byebye
So Job not literal. Tower of Babel not literal.(I remember back before blacks got the priesthood, Joseph Smith’s translation, aka Catalyst Theory, of the Kinderhook plates had the Jaredites descended from Ham through Pharaoh. And the archaeological proof were the Olmec Heads.) This not literal. That not literal.
In order to preserve the Historicity of of the Book of Mormon, what is actually said is discounted. And God becomes unreliable. I realized Obi-Wan said, “From a certain point of view”, but I took that as retconned bad script writing.
So a,b.c is not literal. How ’bout e,f,g and then h,i,j? At what point do you stop. Gonna hold a firm line at x?
I am of the opinion that historicity should be dropped and instead focus on the Book of Mormon’s teachings.
This thread has generated good discussions. One observation we can tease out is there seems to be a different view of the church’s focus on the Book of Mormon setting that correlates to the ages of commenters. This appears to reveal changes in how and what the church emphasized over time. It would be interesting to have a post dedicated to this subject by someone who may know more about the topic.
The dialogue between Tim and Dsc bears out this observation. Tim posted a video that was standard fare in the 70’s (as a film, not video), but Dsc writes “I’m too young to have had experience with the video you posted”. Consequently, when the younger folks see the George Q. Cannon 1890 statement they may assume the church has maintained such an antiseptic stand-off approach for the next one hundred years. This isn’t the correct context to understand what it was like for members in the 40’s through the 90’s.
Some people might be surprised that Hugh Nibley wrote a Church sponsored study guide for Priesthood Quorums. It was titled “An Approach to the Book of Mormon: Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (published by the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints – 1957). In it he wrote:
“But what of the mighty ruins of Central America? It is for those who know them to speak of them, not for us. It is our conviction that proof of the Book of Mormon DOES lie in Central America, but until the people who study that area can come to some agreement among themselves as to what they have found, the rest of us cannot very well start drawing conclusions.”
In the preface to the 1964 edition he wrote “The work is a new approach to the Book of Mormon and for that reason demands careful reading and study of every member of the priesthood classes using it. In this work the Book of Mormon is seen in a new perspective: we see it in a world setting, not in a mere local one. It takes its place naturally alongside the Bible and other great works of antiquity and becomes one of them.”
His statements are in complete harmony with George Q. Cannon’s, but they show discussion of the Book of Mormon in its world setting was not off the table for church instruction. We were taught that “”Mormonism” includes all truth” (Brigham Young) and we lived it. Back then, the church did not make distinctions between “scientific truth” and other truth. The expectation was the Book of Mormon and church doctrines would be found compatible or even validated by truths uncovered by science. This is the church context my generation grew up with but it does not seem like the context my kids and grand-kids are experiencing. As Bryant stated “… I don’t see the church totally backing away from historicity of the BoM, I do see them soft-selling it more, where the gospel content is important.” Maybe that’s the direction it needs to go, but understand why some of us in the older generation are having cognizant dissonance over the implications of that shift.
Dave C, excellent observations. Thank-you for that comment.
Suzanne Neilsen writes:
“So a,b.c is not literal. How ’bout e,f,g and then h,i,j? At what point do you stop. Gonna hold a firm line at x?”
This is a really great summary of what I think about the course of events described in this discussion, fleshed out by Dave C. above.
With one caveat-. the alphabet is linear and each letter is only next to 2 other letters. But these issues that the letters represent are not linear. They are inter-related in complex ways. If you knock over f it will not just jeopardize g but also m and q and y. My weakness in not adequately describing these interrelations does not invalidate them. Think about it..
For example::
” a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska.4 These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America”
(Boyd Packer rolling in his grave). Not compatible with a recent literal world wide flood. Because there isn’t enough time in a literal chronology for this to happen even under ideal circumstances. Jaredites are too close in time to the flood in the literal story. And stone age populations of humans have a doubling time measured in the many hundreds to thousands of years. The problems multiply, not the population.
Not taking a literal interpretation of Noah’s flood destroys Joseph Smith’s complex eschatology. Not only did he get BOM geography wrong, he gets the geography of the end of times wrong. A literal flood world wide makes this statement quoted above impossible.A literal flood is required for the prophets Adam to Noah to be in Missouri.haiving them come back at the end of times doesn’t make sense if theywere never there in the first place. Dispensationalism at the end is questioned.
The Lamanites are only placed in the midwest in the DC a few times. We only have to ignore/change a few verses in the DC (and a whole lot of historic documents) to make it acceptable for Sunday school discussions . Are we prepared to extract whole sections of the DC (sections in the 50’s mostly) and many other verses to get the eschatology compatible with the geography of no flood to divide ante-diluvial history in Missouri from post-diluvian history in Palestine? Or do we keep the literal flood and eschatology and disregard DNA problems? Oops, that horse is already out of the barn and over the hills.
Joseph Smith telling people to stay and fight and die in Missouri and he got the geography of Missouri wrong? Is Christ going to return to Jackson county to a complex of temples we are to build ? Is that doctrine? Or was that just wrong opinion? Do we expect His return any more? I was told it would be around year 2000 in high school seminary and even bet a seminary teacher $500 if it didn’t happen by 2010. I didn’t collect that bet.
Would you like for me to discuss several other topics that would be represented by later letters of the alphabet and how problems with one domino into problems with others??
It would be one thing if Joseph Smith said maybe or made it clear when he was likely spewing wrong opinions and when he was speaking the words of the Lord. He seems himself to not be able to tell the difference. He had to be aware that his devoted followers believed almost his every word. I cannot tell when he is speaking as a man and when he is speaking for the Lord, when he is teaching divine doctrine and when he thinks he is and it is wrong. This loss of his credibility calls everything into question.
Every unlikely genetic dilution or drift or whatever (multiple unrelated events) to explain the complete lack of any DNA evidence has to happen twice because there are two migrations described in the BoM. The BoM story requires not one implausible genetic chain of events but two. This is hard science and hard to get around. It is no wonder it forces us budge off our previous positions. Why we are trying to accommodate the DNA evidence which destroys so much and yet we cling to a few relatively trivial literalisms? Which will be even harder to defend than battles already lost. Suzanne is right, we are already there; historicity is dropped or we are right back in the quicksand of Joseph’s unreliability.
We cannot hold firm at line at x. because by the time we get there, (we already are pretty close) it isn’t just u v w that we have to slow down but rather more like an avalanche that is already 100 yards wide and is wiping out the buildings and cars in a parking lot. (Anybody at Alta for the avalanche of ’73?) Or “…well might a man stretch forth his puny arm and stop the mighty Missouri river in its decreed course.. ” Or was that the Nile river? Maybe we can find out by reinterpreting Fascimile # 2 again. While buried in snow and suffocating. Spiritually of course, not literally.
How does one get to the new Gospel Topics through the Library app? The path to get there isn’t obvious to me.
Gospel Library (on phone) –> Topics –> Gospel Topics –> Book of Mormon Geography.
Other short articles are available at Topics –> Church History Topics
Thanks Dave B.!
I have neglected to mention that I see bailing out of these problems by focusing on Christ as a cop-out currently.
I have herein described before- my current fate on Sunday morning. My wife attends an evangelical church . We compromise and do not let church divide us any more than it already does. We attend sacrament meeting and then her service together. Over the years I have attended hundreds of evangelical meetings. I have many issues with their doctrine which are rarely even mentioned, but not with their teachings and worship of Christ in general. They do far better than we do. They have been doing it for decades in my personal experience and probably for centuries. Which is easier to ignore? The trinity or geography. Sort of denies the essence of a Restoration. Just saying…
The problem with the BoM is that its many historical problems (and the other problems of its author) are so embedded that they be very distracting to the message of the gospel of Christ. We can get that cleaner and better from the New Testament and from any number of carefully selected other sources composed over the centuries. There is nothing unique about the doctrines of Christ within the BoM. There is nothing new under the sun.
A nearby LDS church has two large prints hanging on the wall. One of Christ with Machu Picchu (Peru) in the background. The other with Chichen Itza (Mexico) in the background. Until recently the Church has done little to discourage a hemispheric BoM model.
Roger, re symbolic art: Both Josh Rossi and John Zamudio, the latter from Peru, have produced artwork picturing Christ at Machu Picchu. Zamudio also has one of Christ in Xpuhil (a Mayan ruin in Mexico). But for a truly hemispheric, but clearly symbolic, depictionl, look at Minerva Teichert’s Christ in the Americas! Except for Teichert’s approach, I don’t know what can be done effectively to teach symbolism rather than historicity in art. Many seemed to have entirely missed, e.g., what Arnold Friberg wanted to convey by making his Nephites “larger than life.” While I won’t quibble with your last sentence. It doesn’t seem to me there is any significant connection between it and the prints in a “nearby LDS church”.
I think it’s been demonstrated that art (illustrations) do have an impact. Look at the dated translation(?) illustrations of the BoM being translated(?). Clearly they had a major impact on member’s idea regarding the book’s origins. Illustrations should not give a false impression. Period.
As for Arnold Friberg, his illustrations are just plain silly. A reminent of the old Hollywood muscle-bound biblical epics. Happily the’ve been retired.
It is true that art and illustration have an impact. I’d be happy if we got rid of a lot of it including Rossi and Zamudio and the use of Friberg as unexplained illustration and a lot of Harry Anderson and those paintings of JS translating the BoM with his finger tracing characters on gold plates. But “Illustrations should not give a false impression. Period.” seems like a vote to get rid of all religious art. Maybe we should also get rid of the inverted pentagrams on the Nauvoo temple — to a good number of people the inverted pentagram is a satanic symbol, though it wasn’t when the first Nauvoo temple was built. I don’t have much hope for success in teaching people visual symbolism or linguistic symbolism and their cultural ambiguities, but I’m not sure we should stop trying either. Of course, it could help a great deal if Church publications would start trying — or do so more consistently. What if all illustration were limited to abstract or cartoon styles? Would that help?
The moment of clarity when I realized that the Book of Mormon had to be fictional was during a listening of the audiobook for Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He was discussing the development of writing and gave a fairly brief overview of the earliest writings discovered from four peoples: Sumerian, Egyptian, Chinese, and Mayan.
And I thought of how literate the Book of Mormon people were. I remembered reading a FARMS article about the high level of literacy among BofM peoples (https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-10-number-3-2009/internal-evidence-widespread-literacy-book-mormon).
And it hit me. There is no example in human history of a literate people, tracking their gods and their debts and their ancestors and so forth in writing losing that ability. And it is not credible to claim that all examples have been lost as we find evidence of ancient literacy in every climate and setting, from shards of pottery to inscribed stone to scrapings on turtle shells etc.
While it is certain that a new city or temple will be uncovered in the jungles or under the plains tomorrow, it is impossible that we have overlooked a multimillion population civilization that was literate. Not a chance. For example, for 200 years after Christ’s visit to the Nephites, they are living in peace primarily engaged in studying and teaching the gospel in the form of the words of Isaiah and Samuel and Christ himself. Remember how he tells them to make sure they write this stuff down as its so important. It is not credible to turn around and think that all evidence of such a literate civilization had disappeared and all subsequent use of writing ceased–as if all of a sudden tax records were better maintained via an oral tradition and ancestors kept track of better by word of mouth or scripture better remembered through oral tradition. Insanity.
This conversation must have inspired Stephen.
http://www.ldsliving.com/5-Reasons-Why-Book-of-Mormon-Historicity-Is-Important/s/90303?fbclid=IwAR09STZvalb3XTHfV4INyBI_iagrTz6N4GbUL4Kub7Yxnm7Qyym0D3fFmqo
As a thought experiment, I often think what would be different should irrefutable evidence be found establishing that the gold plates are exactly as represented? My conclusion is that little to nothing would change as to the Church or the world’s indifference to its claims.
In contrast, what would be different if irrefutable evidence was found establishing that the gold plates have no historical basis? That is a more complex analysis as far as the Church is concerned.
I am certain of one thing — at some point, one or these two scenarios will play out.