As reported by FairMormon and others, there have been some updates to the new “Book of Mormon Geography” Gospel Topics entry I reported on in January.[1] It seems curious that the Church updated the short entry so quickly after it was originally published, so we’ll explore some possible reasons.
What changed?
First, let’s go through the changes themselves. Deletions are indicated by strikethrough. Additions are bolded. Italics are from the original text:
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.
The Book of Mormon includes a history of an ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas. This history contains information about the places they lived, including descriptions of landforms, natural features, and the distances and cardinal directions between important points. The internal consistency of these descriptions is one of the striking features of the Book of Mormon.
Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon—with the exception of the events in the Near East—occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. 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 itChurch’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.
The Prophet Joseph Smith himself accepted what he felt was evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations in both North America and Central America. While traveling with Zion’s Camp in 1834, Joseph wrote to his wife Emma that they were “wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.”1 In 1842, the Church newspaper Times and Seasons published articles under Joseph Smith’s editorship that identified the ruins of ancient native civilizations in Mexico and Central America as further evidence of the Book of Mormon’s historicity.2
The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. President M. Russell Ballard, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, reminded members that “the Book of Mormon is not a textbook on topography. Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten; such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose.”
Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.
Anthony W. Ivins, a Counselor in the First Presidency, stated: “There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question [of Book of Mormon geography]. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth.”3 The Church urges local leaders and members not to advocate theories of Book of Mormon geography in official Church settings. Speaking of the book’s history and geography, President Russell M. Nelson taught: “Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.”43
Why those changes?
First, President Anthony W. Ivins’ April 1929 general conference quote was deleted. On first glance, it looks like they just wanted to replace it with something more recent, hence the quote from sitting apostle President M. Russell Ballard.[2] But President Ivins’ quote is problematic in other ways.
I noted in my January post that some people have accused the Church of favoring certain geography theories over others in official publications like Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days. One critic noted that the supposedly neutral quote from President Ivins was another example of such manipulation. Understand that one of the biggest fights in the Book of Mormon geography wars is over the Hill Cumorah. Was there one hill named Cumorah (the one in New York where Joseph found the plates, suggesting that Book of Mormon events took place in that location), or were there two hills named Cumorah (the one in New York, and another in the actual location that the Book of Mormon took place, most often put forth as Mesoamerica)? The April 1929 quote from President Ivins suggests he was neutral on the theory, but his general conference talk the year before indicates otherwise. The Church had just purchased the Hill Cumorah property, so President Ivins was commenting on the importance of that acquisition.
According to the Book of Mormon many hundreds of thousands of people fell in battle around this hill, and the immediate vicinity. It was here that two once powerful nations were exterminated so far as their natural existence was concerned. It was here that these nations gathered together for their last great struggle…
All of these incidents to which I have referred, my brethren and sisters, are very closely associated with this particular spot in the State of New York. Therefore I feel, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, that the acquisition of that spot of ground is more than an incident in the history of the Church; it is an epoch… We know that all of these records, all the sacred records of the Nephite people, were deposited by Mormon in that hill. That incident alone is sufficient to make it the sacred and hallowed spot that it is to us. I thank God that in a way which seems to have been providential it has come into the possession of the Church.
President Anthony W. Ivins, April 1928 General Conference
Second, instead of discouraging talk of geography theories in church settings, the updates expand that to discouraging members from advocating theories in ANY “setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories.” I’m wondering if at least one reason for that modification was a recent Book of Mormon Central video, “What Have Prophets Thought about Book of Mormon Geography?” Book of Mormon Central occupies a privileged place in church apologetics; they are listed by the Church as a trusted resource for Church Educational System instructors. But this video shares certain books important to church leaders (two from their own personal libraries) that definitely lean a certain direction. First is the book Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan by John Loyd Stevens, excerpts of which were included in the Church’s newspaper Times of Seasons (noted in the “Book of Mormon Geography” Gospel Topics entry). A first edition of the Popol Vuh, which records among other things the K’iche’ Mayan creation myth, was displayed from President Spencer W. Kimball’s personal library. A book simply called Geography of the Book of Mormon was shared from President Harold B. Lee’s personal library, wherein was shown a handwritten note from Lee, “Were there two Hill Cumorahs’? One in B of M history, one from which plates came?” You can definitely come away with the perception that modern prophets were drawn to Mesoamerican theories.
Finally, the Church added the admonition, “All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.” I mentioned the contention between proponents of different Book of Mormon geography theories in my January post, but I suspect the Church was influenced by Brant Gardner’s guest post at the Times and Seasons blog. Commenting on the original version of the “Book of Mormon Geography” Gospel Topics entry, Gardner wrote, “The church’s message didn’t… include an admonition to increase the civility of the discussions about Book of Mormon geography. Perhaps the Internet simply exposes a larger number of opinions that used to remain private—and then amplifies them. We could do with another admonition from Elder Uchtdorf to stop it.” Later, “While I do think we need to stop the rancor, I don’t think we need to stop the questions.”
What do you think? Any other possible reasons behind the recent changes?
[1] Many people refer to the “Book of Mormon Geography” entry as a Gospel Topics essay. While technically true (it is a short essay), I find it causes confusion with the big Gospel Topics Essays released a few years ago; that’s why I refer to “Book of Mormon Geography” as a Gospel Topics entry. For information on the difference between the Gospel Topics, Gospel Topics Essays, and Church History Topics sections, see my recent post here. Also, when I first reported on the new “Book of Mormon Geography” Gospel Topics entry, I noted that it was only available in the “Gospel Topics” section of the Gospel Library app, not in the “Gospel Topics” section of the Church’s website. Having it on the website was likely already in the works, because it popped up a short time later.
[2] President Ballard’s quote in the updated Gospel Topics entry is unsourced. I have no idea where it came from. My guess is it’s a relatively recent address that has no online transcription.
Wheat & Tares 
I think the evidence indicates Joseph Smith regarded the Book of Mormon on the hemispheric model, covering both North and South America and the Nephite’s final conflict took place near the Great Lakes region. It is hard to accept his view as “opinion” because “He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.”
Such a view became problematic, however, and hence the rise of the alternative Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon of which Nibley stated ” 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.” This was pretty much the view of many members through-out the latter half of the 20th century. But it also comes with problems as archeologists are coming to more agreement to what is there.
The church’s position now is to implore people not to look behind the curtain. Such a position seems to betray a lack of confidence about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
The problem with multiple geographies is that they contradict each other and we end up with no geography at all.
No wonder they are saying, hush hush.
There apparently are sound reasons why our archeologists cannot abide by a geography in the northern US and are searching for more plausibility in Latin America. (I don’t know what these reasons are). And there is an abundance of evidence that Joseph Smith “knew” the geography included the northern US. Along with a century plus of his successors and devotees. If we are wrong about a seemingly simple question (where?) we might be wrong about the more preposterous claims (gold plates, ante Domini Christianity in America, dozens of anachronisms, etc.) and be wrong about the rest of the story.
We have abandoned the hemispheric geography and the expanded geography to the Pacific islands. I think partly because of absence of middle eastern DNA in the Americas and better understanding of human migrations. Not only can’t we say where but we can’t even say how big either. Is this not true?
This seems to me like a raccoon with its paw caught in a trap thrashing about.
***
I am related to one of the people accused of being contentious on this topic, Rod Meldrum. I don’t understand why so many people are so angry with him. Even if he is wrong. He admits he doesn’t have a testimony of his theories and would change them if convincing evidence (to him) was provided. He was raised in exactly the kind of home environment promoted by the church leaders in the 1960-70’s and thinks like a classic orthodox Mormon of that time. He lacks tact, this is true, but that is also true of our generation.If I ever had to be in a handcart company I would want Rod to be the first person with me. He is about the most pleasant, funny and nicest guy around. I think he sees these changes as partially exonerating his ideas and also trying to shut the discussion down. But he rides a wave of interest he did not create and ignoring these problems will not work. Already tried that.
Personally, I think there is decreasing wiggle room about BoM historicity and it will be abandoned eventually, much like the Book of Abraham. Except the consequences are greater. And there are so many other aspects of Joseph Smith that are enormously troubling. I think the way forward for us is to move beyond Joseph Smith. Perhaps not as fast as the Community of Christ (former RLDS). I am also sympathetic to elderly orthodox Mormons whose lives would be ruined in their final years of tribulation by sickness, poverty, loneliness, digital ineptitude, lack of respect, etc. For many, the church is all they have upon which to cling.
Two incompatible audiences: the orthodox older stalwarts and the millennials. Let us not forget who painted us into this corner. Our beloved leaders saying they were certain they were right when they were wrong.
My theory is that a lot of them (Seventy Members and 15 Prophets, Seers and Revelators) have in the last 15 years just learned of BOM historicity problems and the extent of them. I also have a theory that they are all not united on the same message or the same direction they should go. My biggest theory is that the beauty of these digital essays and entrys is that they can be modified quickly and quietly.
Other than that, I agree with your assessment. There are a handful of people who have monetized this debate and the fine print says not to discuss them at church. It looks to me they felt a need to edit the fine print and tell people to just not discuss it anywhere. Now let’s see if they want to put some teeth behind it and ex the people who dupe believing Mormons out of their money with those silly tours and silly books.
Side note, LIDAR is finding all kinds of ancient Lamanite villages. What an exciting time to be a Mormon who buys into the Mesoamerican theory. Is this kind of talk what they want stopped? Maybe they should let LDS Living know.
Other side note, there is a man from the town I live in named Richard Hansen. He loves all things Mayan. He is in charge of a dig down at Mirador and is a close friend of my parents. They went down to the site last year and said it was pretty cool. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I don’t think he believes he is studying Lamanites. Wait, I think I am doing it again.
This is going to take some getting use to.
Since the Lamanites were changed racially by God from the Nephites, and all the Israelite Nephites were destroyed 1600 or so years ago, why should anyone expect Israelite DNA to exist in the Americas? And more, how can anyone prove that the Israelite DNA of 2600 years ago is the same as Jewish DNA today?
We have this promise:
26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;
27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;
2 8 A time to come in the which NOTHING SHALL BE WITHHELD… –D&C 121
I love reading the Book of Mormon, yet for a lot of reasons I pray for the day more is revealed about its actual location. Presently, I am a firm believer in the Andes with the Amazon under water before Christ model:
Click to access Evidences.pdf
Very interesting news. Thanks for this overview.
If the Church previously designated an entity like Book of Mormon Central as a priviledged source, what should we now make of that group’s continuing writings on BOM geography?
They’ll never ex those tour guides or book writers. Those people are much too well connected with the church elites.
Zach,
Do you really believe that church leaders are only recently learning that people have challenged the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the basis of those challenges? That position seems absurd to me. This is a discussion that has been going on for many decades, with the only relatively recent significant changes being discoveries that support the Nephi’s narrative of their journey across the Arabian peninsula.
Meldrum, Neville, May, and others provide compelling evidence to be considered. They neither claim or imply any special sanction from the Brethren or divine revelations. And, they don’t censor, alter, or malign the testimony of Prophets and Apostles. They have proven to be open to ideas than can be discussed civilly.
I’ve been following this debate for 45+ years and have had to put up with a lot of name calling, but they don’t offer an honest debate. Just non-sequitur anecdotes and vast speculation.
It is heartbreaking that the gulf created by the scholars, whom I have NOT sustained should create such acrimony among the Saints. This is a distraction from the message of the restored Gospel. As in times of old, follow the Savior, not the Scribes.
I think a perfect example is Hans Mattson telling us that L Tom Perry in 2005 had a manuscript in his briefcase that Elder Perry thought would answer all of his questions. It was Bushmans “Rough Stone Rolling” and it confirmed his questions. That indicates to me Edler Perry’s ignorance of not only the questions, but also ignorance of the church’s ability to address the questions. These men are not historians and short of the ones that were CES workers, most have about as much interest in church history as your average Stake President today has. Unless they were reading Tanners, Vogel, Metcalf, Dialogue, Sunstone, Quinn, Compton, Brodie, Newell or Avery, where would they have gotten the basic information that is in the essays? Let’s not forget the September 6, and the fact that most people in the list above were considered anti and many were booted from the church, people were actually encouraged not to study that material. I am not doubting that Packer, Hinckley, Monson, Nelson, Ballard, Bednar and other long timers have known about these issues for a number of years. However, men like Uchtdorf, Soares, Andersen, Rasband, Stevenson, Christoferrson – these guys were businessmen and I would bet they are learning about a lot of this for the first time. Same goes for the Q70. I stand by my theory.
Zach,
First off, I don’t trust Hans Mattson. His stories are too often suspiciously consistent in painting himself as intelligent and other Church leaders as ignorant. Second, assu,info that the Elder Perry story is accurate, I see no reason to conclude Elder Perry was ignorant of anything for suggesting that Rough Stone Rolling would affirm Mattson’s faith. Plenty of people have said that their faith was strengthened by that book. It also suggests that Elder Perry has an interest in reading things like Rough Stone Rolling, which, to me, is directly contrary to your point.
Other than that, you haven’t really cited evidence. I don’t see how anything related to the September 6 supports your argument, and the assumption that businesspeople are not well read on these issues is a little pretentious. Your “theory” is pure conjecture, with nothing to back it up.
I don’t read the changes as discouraging discussion of geography theories at all, just discussion that implies church support. I think the church wants to distance itself from being tied down to any theory that has the potential of being clearly disproved by the evidence.
So discuss all you want, just don’t quote prophets or church leaders to try and show that the church supports one theory over another! (Even though at the very least there was clear support of an empty continent hemispheric model for generations).
And more, how can anyone prove that the Israelite DNA of 2600 years ago is the same as Jewish DNA today?
Ancient graves.
“Nothing shall be withheld”
Open your eyes. For over a century the historicity of the BoM was plausible if not a bit fantastic. DNA science along with archeology and other research is now strongly questioning it. Science is the mechanism by which God reveals his universe to us, and exposes imposters, chalatans and liars.
What has religion uncovered in the last 100 years? Mormonism? That polyamy is not a good idea and blacks are worthy human beings and 2 hours of church is just as good as 3 hrs of church? In comparison what has science uncovered since 1830?
The Piltman hoax was a great example ti illustrate how nothing shall be withheld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
In 1912 Charles Dawson (not Darwin) discovered a human ancestor skull in England thought to be half a million years old. It was a human skull with a highly altered jaw from an orangutan. It was accepted a the missing link and a valuable clue to human origins by top scientists.The hoax was exposed in 1953 through better understanding of hominoid osteology.
The hoax was important in driving thinking that the big brain evolved first, driving the evolution from tree dwellling fruit eating apes to plains dwelling humans using tools and hunting. It caused anthropologists to ignore the discovery of Australopithecus skulls which imply a different sequence. Australopithecus is a very disturbing creature to me; very close to a smaller human body from the neck down with a head closer to other apes and a brain size about half of modern humans. If not extinct, they might be the ultimate sex bimbos. Of course we Mormons don’t take human evolution seriously so this is of little interest to us.
What preconceived notions do we harbor today that cause us to ignore new evidence?
***
As far as making money off the tours. I can say for a fact that my relative barely cuts even. His wife works to support the family while he does “the work of the Lord’ as he sees it. Drive by his house and look at his old minivan. You might sooner accuse him of being a freeloader and gigalo than a money duper. People like to travel most anywhere and it does cost something to do it. Why not Ohio or Missouri instead of Florida? Not as much immodesty for sure.
Dave, there’s no curtain to look behind: “The church’s position now is to implore people not to look behind the curtain.”
The church’s position is clearly stated and intended to avoid conflict.
The Other Mike says “Let us not forget who painted us into this corner.”
I do not see a corner and the responsible person, for me, is me. I have made my choices. Do you not make your own choices?
“What preconceived notions do we harbor today that cause us to ignore new evidence?”
There is no “we”. You refuse, or accept, new evidence for reasons known only to you. As for me, new evidence must be of a quality commensurate with the old idea to be altered. The most crucial focal point, for me, is whether the Book of Mormon was sourced as described. It could still be fiction since I don’t know that Moroni didn’t create it from scratch (move the goal posts in other words). But if Joseph Smith did not actually possess the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, that would be a Big Deal.
“My biggest theory is that the beauty of these digital essays and entrys is that they can be modified quickly and quietly.”
You can’t be serious.
This whole post demonstrates the ease of redlining the changes with Google cache.
Only gen X haven’t figured out that everything posted online is forever.
Bishops are chosen out of wards by Stake Presidents. Stake Presidents are nominated by bishops and high councilman and then chosen by the visiting 70 in a two day period. 7o’s are chosen out of the pool of past Stake Presidents. Maybe it is different where you live, but the men that I know that have risen in the ranks are not the ones that dive into church history. I can say for certain the last 4 bishops I have had and the last 3 Stake Presidents I have had know very little about BOM historicity or early church history. I have talked with all of them about it. This dynamic is changing as more bishops and Stake Presidents are being forced into educating themselves so that they can try and counsel people who are having problems. Regardless, it is all conjecture since neither one of us knows for certain who knows what. Agree to disagree?
JPV, I am operating under the assumption that they are really trying to disseminate the best information that they have and are willing to update that information as often as possible. Their effort to be transparent in the last decade is commendable in my opinion. The average member probably is not going to be too concerned or even be aware if there are edits on these entrys and essays. The app makes it easy for them to make these changes.
Mike- I didn’t mean to disparage cousin Ron by using the word dupe. I have been to Cancun a number of times and I think they prey on Mormons down there and it pisses me off. One of the tour guides was actually named Moroni. Wayne May’s daughter married a friend of mine in southern Idaho. I don’t think he makes a ton of money off his project either.
Zach,
I know and/or have had significant conversations with quite a few area seventies, and I know and/or have had significant conversations with a few general authorities. The average area seventy is about as different from the average stake president as the average stake president is different from the average bishop, which, in my experience, is significant. Of course they’re not going to know more than scholars on these issues, but they’re not ignorant either.
That’s interesting that the change in the gospel topics essay may have been influenced by the bloggernacle. I think that it very well may be. Especially given the fact that just as of recent there appear to be a lot of active members saying that they do not believe in a historical BOM but believe that the church is true nonetheless. This is a relatively new phenomenon for sure (mostly in the past and mostly now as well once someone stopped believing in BOM historicity, they stopped believing in the church) and one that I don’t think the LDS leaders were aware of. Hence the added emphasis of taking a position that it occurred in the ancient Americas. I think that the leaders are now beginning to guard against any movement that may arise out of a new strain of active member that pushes for an ahistorical BOM. They most certainly do not want ahistorical members mentioning such things in a church setting. It would cause major controversy and division.
Michael 2.
I did not chose to be born into an orthodox Mormon family- that I can remember. I did chose to not rebel against what I was taught. Give me a break.
I did not chose to have a curious mind But I did try to study and learn far more than any of my siblings or peers, initially with the intention of being a great defender of the faith.
I did not chose the evidence I found. It took me half a century of sincere study, prayer, pondering and struggle to come to the place where I am at now.
I did not chose to be lied to about a faith that I zealously adopted and for which I was willing to give up my opportunity to go to college to missionarize. (Any more than did my cousin chose to be kidnapped and murdered).
I did not convince the dearly beloved now elderly people in my extended family to believe in what is probably turning out to be a preposterous fraud and for it to be the primary source of comfort and strength to them in their final difficult years.
It was not my choice that more and more of a rising generation of millennials all around me simply don’t buy it.
I do not chose to do anything about it. I have very little influence while others have much.
****
“evidence must be of a quality commensurate with the old idea to be altered”
This is so ridiculous I want to scream. Almost all the people of Joseph Smith’s generation thought he was a fraud and a scroundrel. The “evidence” he offered was virtually nothing. Gold plates found by a treasure hunter during angelic visitations? Shown in vision to only 3 people and 8 others hefted them- once? The gold plates were examined by precisely zero scientists- who were pretty ignorant then but still capable of describing things as to size, shape, weight, color etc.. There was far more evidence to support the Piltdown hoax than anything we ever claimed. The gold plates remain hidden from any scientific scrutiny today. You know included in old copies of the BoM was an example of some of the figures copied from the gold plates and this is now extremely ridiculous. ( Google image: Mormon Figure from gold plates. Also now in Joseph Smith papers so you can’t play the citation game.
Joseph Smith asked people to pray about it and the only people who followed him did it, not based an any object evidence, but upon personal revelation or inspiration.Have you not read any conversion stories of that time? (We are talking about 100% of my ancestors here.) So, following your suggested standard above, it takes next to no evidence at all to overthrow it.
The corner in which we are painted is not that we have a hill of evidence for something we feel inspired about after prayer and personal revelation. We have a growing mountain, even an avalanche of evidence sweeping the hills away. We had no evidence at the publication of the BoM and very little for decades after. It was not until the 20th century that in house Mormon scholars began to build a case of scientific plausibility for the historicity of these claims. Very few of them gained acceptance in the greater scientific communities. They identified some interesting findings. But the tide is turning against us. And you demand even more evidence for something in which there never was very much?
You are correct in that you are entitled to chose your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. There is a difference . It was an opinion in 1830 that maybe the Indians living in the midwest descended from travelers from Palestine. Today it is a fact that there is no DNA or linguistic or cultural evidence to support it and much evidence to support other explanations. It is outrageous that you demand commensurate evidence. We already have it in abundance and my lack of skill in expressing it does not make it less.
You do know that the church now admits that Joseph did not directly translate the gold plates? He had his head in a hat looking at seer stones on which words appeared.The gold plates were hidden out under a log. What is even more outrageous is that you think you can shame me into returning to discarded beliefs.
You are on a journey and you do not know where it will take you. Perhaps you will eventually come to a place similar to mine. Perhaps not. I wish you luck and godspeed.and ask for your forgiveness for provoking my anger with your bull-headedness.
Thoughts on ripping tourists off in Cancun
For thousands of years the native inhabitants of the Americas have been ripping each other off. Tribes waged war and killed each other and kidnapped/raped the women and so forth for countless ages. That was Neolithic culture, far from romantic ideas about the noble savage.
Then the Europeans (Spanish –Catholic) discovered America, again (Vikings). Later other Europeans (England etc. mostly Protestant) colonized North America. One of the great paradoxes of history is that the Spanish exploited the more advanced and wealthy civilizations in Mexico and points further south for a century before the English exploited what is now North American which was far more primitive and without much wealth. The English didn’t so much exploit the meager native wealth as simply kill the natives off, more with their contagious diseases than warfare, which undoubtedly was plenty violent and deceitful. This while the Spanish were more eager to take the natives and make children who then had better resistance to the diseases. I admit this is painting with very broad strokes, ignoring others like the French.
And yet in the last 200 years the USA has become vastly more wealthy and powerful and technologically advanced than Mexico, Brazil, Peru or anywhere else. The curious mind winders why? It is a complex question I do not fully understand, yet alone can answer. This book got me to thinking about it: Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Acemoglu & Robinson.
***
In this greater historical context I don’t have much of a problem with the comparative little ripping off that the descendants of the former Spanish colonies in Cancun do to the descendants of the former English colonies in the name of tourism.
Of course, the same logic might justify Trump’s ridiculous wall. But at least let’s be honest. The wall is an implement of conflict over control of resources as is illegal immigration. It might be more in line with history and cheaper and work better to just shoot people we don’t like. Stop pretending to be the beacon of liberty and freedom and so forth to all.
One political party claims the moral high ground and thinks illegal immigration will help them win future elections. Do they realize this might not always be true? Watch how fast the political positions flip if Hispanic voters in the US change parties. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/24/2020-hispanic-voters-donald-trump-225192
Likewise consider, as a thought experiment, how fast would our church leaders take a strong position and encourage us to study geography, if for example, a convincing city of Zarahemla was to be excavated finding ancient graves containing DNA homologous with that in Palestine and verifying numerous other BoM stories. It is not very mature of us to bellow loudly any science that supports our religious claims and ignore science that refutes them.
What ever happened to the saying- You don’t have to believe anything in this church that isn’t true?
Coming late, but advocating Church positions is more some of the heartland models who make a big deal of a Cowdery letter. The FAIR/BMC tends to just show that they were all over the map. (Pardon the pun)
Be nice to imagine our T&S post contributed but I suspect they were looking at revising it anyway. I’m curious if they revise the Masonry one.
Getting to the comments:
1. I think the Brethren are better informed than people appear to think. Ignoring the fact many have academic backgrounds it just seem silly to assume they’ve never heard of typical attacks on the Church.
2. Regarding DNA. The problem is that the Lehites were refugees from the northern Kingdom. So you have to have a sufficient sample of ancient 6th century graves to be sure you are getting the genetic difference. Even then you then have to contend with their DNA being swamped if you accept the idea of a small community mixing in with large (millions) populations.
Clark, the Masonry essay was released with the 110+ other Church History Topic Essays last September. I’m honestly surprised it didn’t get more buzz sooner (which is partly why I listed every single essay in the Church History Topic section in my explanatory post about Gospel Topics, Gospel Topics Essays, and Church History Topics – people just don’t about them).
I had heard that there was a blank page on the Geography and Masonry pages until a couple of weeks before LDS Living and FAIR started talking about them. Had you seen it in September?
The Masonry Church History Topic essay came out with the book Saints. I read it at the time I was writing my posts on the book. If you have the printed version of Saints, you can see that the essay is recommended for further reading in footnote 44 on page 642. I found it interesting that the only recommended reading the topic had was the corresponding chapter in the book “A Reason for Faith,” but luckily I have the book. (ETA: I even brought up the Masonry essay in a private Facebook group in October, so I can at least document it back to then.)
The BofM Geography Gospel Topics entry, however, seems to have suddenly appeared in January. It wasn’t even available on the Gospel Topics section of the LDS.org website when I first wrote my post on it in January – it popped up later. You either had to look it up in the Gospel Library app or have a direct URL to the beta version of the website.
Thanks Mary Ann. That clarifies it a lot. Surprised it hadn’t received coverage before.