It’s hard not to think about this question under a second Trump administration when so many actions are being taken to change the way history is taught in our schools. Governmental agencies have been told to remove plaques and stories honoring the contributions of women and people of color. Citizens have also been encouraged to inform on National Parks and Landmarks if the content displayed is deemed “woke” or insufficiently patriotic. Given how LDS history is usually taught, this should feel pretty familiar to everyone. But the solution is not an easy one, and history is complex. As L.P. Hartley famously said, “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” Historical eras have different social norms, beliefs, and values, meaning we can never fully understand them without adapting to their distinct cultural rules.
Additionally, the way nations, religions, and even families tell their history is always partly motivated by a desire to encourage loyalty toward the group, not simply to tell the truth. If facts are like mosaic tiles, the narratives are what connect those tiles into a larger image that explains the past–but the image can differ greatly depending on which tiles are included, how they are connected, and what materials are used to connect them.
- What lesson do children learn from the (false) story of George Washington admitting he chopped down the cherry tree?
- What lesson would children learn if they heard that George Washington’s dentures included teeth from enslaved people, and that this was a common practice at the time for those who could afford it?
- What would students learn if they were told that Washington deliberately rotated his enslaved staff when they served him in Philadelphia because at six months of residency in Pennsylvania, they were eligible to sue for their freedom?
Another consideration is that some facts may not be appropriate for all ages. This is a very modern perspective as children a hundred years ago (or less) were dressed up and brought to see lynchings and public executions, and many of them were raised in single rooms in which adults had sex in the same room and just told them to go back to sleep. But we see certain topics as too difficult for children now, and history is full of these topics. How do you teach about polygamy without having to explain sex and that women did not have the same agency as men? How do you teach about genocide, infanticide, torture, cannibalism, slavery, etc. without giving children nightmares? And what about unsavory facts about colonization, medical history, and so forth? Some facts are salacious, and while true, they also can be a distraction from the whole picture. Elementary school age kids often lack the maturity to deal with a fart in class, let alone the troubling facts of the recent past.
I was listening to an interview with someone who had written a new series of textbooks, and while I felt that many of the author’s points were valid, that you can’t include everything, and that you have to be age appropriate in what you cover, the interviewer pointed out that the author’s textbooks barely mentioned any women or people of color, let alone telling their stories. The author defended these omissions on the grounds that he wasn’t going to include them “just to include them,” but the reality is that women and people of color existed in the time period he wrote about, and they also were a part of the story, just not a part that was being told. He had completely omitted the women’s suffrage movement, for example. His approach is sometimes called the “great men” style of writing history–focusing only on individuals of social prominence under whatever regime is in political control–while ignoring the stories of less powerful people in the same culture–many of whom made substantial contributions to society in terms of inventions, literature, theory, philosophy and other spheres of influence. For instance, several Native American leaders contributed to our modern method of government, and their ideas are very familiar to us today. I don’t know about you, but that’s not stuff I learned in history class.
From Trevor Moore’s comedy routine
[Verse 1]
Benjamin Franklin went out into the storm and bravely let his kite go up in the air
He risked his life on an idea that night and thanks to him we now have light everywhere
Louis Pasteur never gave up on his cures, and thanks to him now we all have a vaccine
And Orville and Wilbur toured until they delivered what until then had just been in a dream[Chorus]
G**damn, white people are geniuses
G**damn, it really blows me away
I know it’s not cool to talk about it, but it’s just something that I’ve got to say
Can you imagine a world where white people just did not exist?
That would be such a terrible thing and someth-
After being called a racist, Trevor explains that he’s writing this song purely based on what was in his history book. He takes the critique and tries again:[Verse 2]
Lots of other races have geniuses too
Don’t let anybody tell you other
George Washington Carver was a black guy who figured out how to make peanut butter
La da dum da daa be da da da da de da dum doo
Dee dee da da da da da da da le dee ba ba da ba mmm ba da da mmm
La da da da da da da da bu dm ba ma boo bup ba bee
At this point Trevor is asked if he only knows about one black person’s achievement, and he explains that’s all that’s in his history textbook from the 1980s in Virginia. When pressed, he suggests that black people probably also invented rap and basketball.
I’ve previously posted about two important figures from Lancaster county history: James Buchanan who is widely considered the worst president in American history for not avoiding the Civil War (and for his Southern sympathies–plus, he was probably one of our few gay presidents, but we don’t know for sure) and Thaddeus Stevens who wrote the 14th amendment, trusted women to manage his business and household (actually, so did Buchanan for the most part), and participated in the underground railroad. These two men were lawyers and politicians who lived at the same time within 5 miles of each other. Instead of the history I was taught in school (which somehow didn’t really feature either of these two prominent locals since textbooks are usually done for national consumption), I think a much better discussion of the events surrounding the Civil War could have been had, at least by high school age, in considering these two contradictory men and their views on abolition. It would also be much more useful and interesting to hear from women and people of color–after all, who is sitting in the classroom? Not just future white men, but everyone.
Absent these more complex discussions, it’s all too easy for us to imagine that we would have picked the right side in the Civil War, we would have fought the Nazis, we would have given a seat to Rosa Parks (or demanded one), we would have ridden alongside Paul Revere (or Sybil Ludington, the 16 year old who also rode 40 miles that night warning her neighbors, yet was not mentioned in my history class), we would have been outraged at the genocide of Native Americans, we would not have thrown rocks at women who wanted the vote or roughed them up and jailed them. But the reality is that when you are living it, history is full of ambiguity, and it’s a lot harder to know what to do, even if you are able to pick the right side.
And it’s not just about what we would do, but it’s about what our forebears did. How should white Southerners feel about their grandfathers who opposed civil rights or participated in lynchings and slavery, who raped enslaved women and sold their own children as property? How should we feel about our grandfathers whose “god-given” right it was to beat their wives if they didn’t submit? How should Germans feel about their grandparents who supported the Nazi regime? How should I feel about the fact that my Dad benefited from the GI bill when black veterans were denied those promised benefits? How should I feel about my parents avoiding redlined neighborhoods so their property values didn’t suffer?
Within church history, all of these same problems exist. Many (most?) church members have some polygamous ancestors. From what I see, most of them prefer to defend the institution of polygamy rather than criticize it for its exploitation of women, and of course, it was complicated–if not for Joseph Smith whose motives are pretty hard to defend, then for others who participated. Women’s rights weren’t great anywhere at the time, and in some ways Mormons gave women more rights than other groups did. I’ve often said I wouldn’t want to have been born five minutes before I was because we continue to make progress on things like how women are treated in society and the rights of LGBTQ people and minorities–that is until recently I have felt that way (civil rights have been going downhill since 2016 for some reason). We make these same white-washing mistakes in how the church tells its own history under the guise of being faith-promoting, but it creates a fragile faith based on exaggerations and lies. Instead we should be teaching students that human beings are not all or nothing.
Jefferson wrote a great document, was a smart inventor, and was also a terrible slaveholder who impregnated teen Sally Hemmings when he was over twice her age. George Washington was humble enough to refuse to serve beyond a second term, but also mostly was looking out for his interests as a wealthy land-owner who wanted Native Americans gone and opposed the limits on expansion that Britain was imposing on the Colonies. Instead of just sharing these contradictory facts, we can also see the arc of change in the thinking of leaders we study. And we can assign students more difficult tasks like grappling with the mistakes of our elders.
- What pressures did these people face?
- What choices were available to them at the time?
- What did courageous people in their day do?
- What blind spots did people from that era have?
- What were the public issues being debated in this time period?
- Whose stories are we missing in this narrative?
If we apply these types of questions and thinking to textbooks, we can avoid the deceptions and patriotic panegyric approaches that I received in the mid-80s without feeling overwhelmed by the horrific flaws of people in the past. Even if we don’t teach accurate history, it will be discovered by the curious among us.
- How do you think we should balance history education in our schools?
- Would you take this same approach in the church or is it more important to hide unsavory facts?
- Does loyalty depend more on understanding complexity and flaws or on seeing leaders as estimable and worthy of our trust?
- How do you avoid those learning about unsavory history from feeling superior and removed from the errors of the past?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Excellent, insightful and thought-provoking post, as always. I think we could all benefit from asking the questions you pose when studying secular or church history. Somewhat related, I’ve recently wondered whether God allowed past and current prophets and other church leaders to promote or sanction institutional racism, polygamy, patriarchy and other gender-unequal policies, etc. specifically to lead us to distrust them.
Hear me out: we are taught to “follow the prophet,” but God doesn’t want us to blindly follow anyone but him/her. He deliberately allows the prophet (and everyone else for that matter) to make mistakes so that we will doubt and question whether he truly “knows the way.”
I’m sure this isn’t a novel thought for most readers here, but it is a framework that enables me to at least attempt to reconcile the church’s undeniable flaws, past and present, with my hope and faith in a more perfect God and Savior and a plan for eternal existence, progression, and happiness. Through “grappling with the mistakes of our elders,” we can better understand the circumstances of their times, and in acknowledging their limitations and shortcomings, we can rely less on their examples and teachings and more on our own learning/study/faith and hopefully become better angels. If only this attitude were more common and accepted within our chapel doors.
I read a book last year called “The Lies I Learned in High School.” It’s basically about all the things we don’t teach, gloss over, or ignore in our country’s history because of a lack of time or a desire to not face a bitter truth. For instance, the nation’s struggle with slavery all the way to the civil rights movement, sometimes called Critical Race Theory, or CRT, which is against the law in many states to teach, even if it wasn’t taught in our public schools.
We could have a book called “The Lies I Learned at Church.” You could include Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society, Seminary, or Institute/BYU Religion class lessons. You could even include General Conference or revelations about how we aren’t supposed to call ourselves Mormon anymore.
Church lessons used to be much more in-depth. Now church history is glossed over or ignored in classes. If you bring something up, no one seems to have heard of it. I think of the bishop born and raised in Utah who had never heard of the Kirtland Safety Society. (Couldn’t you draw some interesting parallels to what’s happening now from that?) There’s also my brother-in-law, born and raised in the church, who was upset when I told him that Joseph Smith’s martyrdom was the result of his actions destroying a printing press, which happened to be owned by a member of the First Presidency and had published something about polygamy. And of course, there is the constant debate about the Mountain Meadows Massacre or blacks having the priesthood.
The last two questions: 1. Does loyalty depend more on understanding complexity and flaws or on seeing leaders as estimable and worthy of our trust? and
2. How do you avoid those learning about unsavory history from feeling superior and removed from the errors of the past? These are much harder to answer.
I think feeling superior has little to do with seeing the errors and having an answer because I’ve seen many who don’t know anything act superior because they have “faith” and don’t question. I also think loyalty is hard to gauge as well because sometimes knowing the facts causes us to lose faith in our leaders, but sometimes it also causes our leaders to lose faith in us, and we are pushed away. It would be nice if the glory of God really was intelligence, knowing the past, present, and future, while having trust in our leaders, but it seems the reality of being human gets in the way. Again, we may see problems, but our leaders may see us as problems.
Thank you for this excellent spotlight on the eternal challenge of interpreting “history”. I had -until recently – assumed that the word meant “that which had occurred in the past”. But, due to essays such as this illuminating take by Hawkgrrrl, I have been made aware the word specifically refers to That Which Is Written In Our Reference Books. Which is by necessity both imcomplete and unavoidably slanted, because it is impossible to discuss EVERY aspect of that which was occurred at one time. One must start somewhere, and move in some specific direction, even when studying past events.
But even with that necessary restriction, her point is clear – the direction that we look when trying to observe the cluttered past must make a good-faith include all aspects of our society, or we remain uneducated and unable to understand.
Thanks again.
Two thoughts immediately come to mind with respect to how the Church teaches its history:
1. Time constraints are real when deciding what to teach. The Church has managed to get a lot of teenagers to spend an hour a day, 5 days a week attending early morning seminary. There is a lot of mindless repetition of various topics in the current and past curriculums. I understand that there’s been a bit of improvement in recent years in teaching these kids about some of the things in the Gospel Topics Essays. I don’t know how uniform or successful that it. Regardless, I don’t think it’s enough. My daughter, who recently returned from a mission, had to help at least 2 different companions of hers who literally first learned of Joseph Smith’s polygamy (one companion) and the priesthood/temple ban (the other companion) on their missions. These girls were truly shaken and in tears when they learned these things on their missions. I’m not certain, but both were the types of girls who very likely attended 4 years of seminary. I know that the Church is currently strongly encouraging seminary teachers to focus on “building testimonies” over learning doctrine/history. However, the Church has somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 hours to instruct students who attend 4 years of seminary. That’s *a lot* of time. Surely, it can do better at covering some of the more troubling aspects of our history.
2. Only teaching the “faith promoting” aspects of Church history is ultimately faith destroying for many members. The Church and parents can control the narrative until kids turn 14 or so. After that, the democratization of information provided by the internet guarantees that these young people are going to hear a lot of negative Church history from other sources. Many members experience a faith crisis when they discover that the whitewashed history they were taught was wrong. Rather than teaching that Church leaders are infallible, which doesn’t match the historical record at all, the Church should be teaching how Church leaders of the past made mistakes and how the Church worked through those mistakes and improved. A life of faith can still make sense, even when the human leaders of the faith are, well, human. I think the Church would ultimately retain many more members–and avoid a number of faith crises–if it directed people to have faith in something other than fallible men.
“It’s a genius move, marketing-wise, to erase the Mormon/LDS brand name in favor of a cheerful, nondenominational Christian calling card. Non-
denominational Christianity has been one of the few growth areas of religion in the United States and abroad.”
Jana Riess, RNS
How the LDS Church is growing — and shrinking
Above statement refers to this:
Instagram: followersofchrist.pnw.
The LDS church has rebranded, reworded, and massaged its image in order to be perceived as a mainstream religion. But is Mormonism changing in any meaningful way, or is it merely putting on sheep’s clothing?
Makes me wonder what the end goal is- Moroni has been replaced by a cross, & now crosses are everywhere. FB & Instagram are used by LDS Corp to disseminate ideas and policies that can’t be shared in General Conference.
Anyone else think this is weird, that the LDS Corp likes to pretend to be non-denominational Christian, in order to attract converts, and wants to hide who/what they really are?
LoudlySublime,
My sense is that the church is making sure that the world knows our staunch position on the Savior. As folks continue to turn away from a belief in a literal Jesus the church may very well become the flagship of those who who still believe that he was indeed the Son of God who came and dwelt among us in the flesh–who was crucified and then resurrected from the dead on the third day. The Book of Mormon will not allow us to believe otherwise.
@Jack
“The Book of Mormon will not allow us to believe otherwise.”
This is why I am currently an atheist. I most recently read the ‘God Delusion” and now I have no choice but to believe it! I didn’t even want to!
Before that, I read the Quran, and I just couldn’t help myself! I HAD to believe it!
And before that? The Book of Mormon!
Help me escape from this madness! Please!!! Someone?!
Jack: What a strange world you live in.. I think it’s pretty clear to most people that the church’s emphasis on the name of Jesus is because of the relentless refusal of Evangelicals to recognize the LDS church as a Christian religion. It feels insecure and frankly unnecessary because Evangelicals will never accept Mormons into the fold. They proved that when 8 million of them failed to show up for Mitt Romney, and here we are under their true Lord & Savior, DJT.
How to balance history education? Start with epistemology early on. How do we know things. Talk about what claims are more certain than others.
It should be noted that for any subject understanding the basic facts can be challenging enough. History teaching should be heavily fact-based and a good portion of the tests should have students simply memorizing facts and getting them correct. We shouldn’t worry too much about how we portray history or to protect the moral character of any particular figure. That said, it shouldn’t be the opposite either. History teaching shouldn’t be about excessively disparaging individuals or over-emphasizing the victimhood of any particular group.
History teaching should be comprehensive. It shouldn’t focus too much on just one area or one movement or figure. It is important to try to cover a lot of ground. Students learn better, and history is understood better, when we look at and compare lots of different areas.
In high school we can begin to analyze different historical narratives with their strengths and weaknesses. The conservative narrative can be included in this analysis contrasted with different liberal narratives of history.
Overall, however, I think too many people are trying to argumentize history teaching. Yet, history is a very fact-based field, therefore facts should come first. Argument second. Students should learn to get down the facts before they leap into argument. Too much discourse today is argument-based where the argument comes first and facts are shaped around the argument. I fear that debate bros, literary critics, philosophy departments, lawyers, and other argument-based fields and professions, have corrupted history. Just lay out a bunch of facts. Many times the facts just speak for themselves.
“Does loyalty depend more on understanding complexity and flaws or on seeing leaders as estimable and worthy of our trust?”
They’re the same thing. Our leaders cannot be considered estimable and trustworthy unless they own up to past mistakes.
Take the gospel topic essay on race and the priesthood. It references an 1850 speech by Brigham Young as evidence that he thought “that at some future day, black Church members would ‘have [all] the privilege and more’ enjoyed by other members.” But if you follow the footnote and read the speech, you’ll find the speech is full of him gushing about the necessity and benefits of slavery. Brigham Young declares himself “a firm believer in slavery” and says that if you believe the Bible, you should be one too.
Reading that infamous Footnote 9 was the final nail in the coffin of my wife’s testimony (mine was already kaput when I read it but it was still horrifying). Because not only does it show a supposed prophet of God significantly behind the moral curve compared to contemporaries like Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, or even Lincoln, it shows the authors/editors of the essay to be duplicitous, citing a source to argue the opposite of what the source shows and burying the lead out of sight.
It doesn’t do much to inspire loyalty. The version of church leaders who deserve our trust because they’re oh so holy and have never led us astray—it’s a complete fiction.
Hawkgrrrl,
I don’t disagree with you on the problem of Evangelicals not accepting us a Christians (generally). And I agree that the church’s emphasis on its true name certainly looks like a gesture of appeasement towards them. But I’m convinced that the church has a much bigger fish to fry than making inroads with other sects. The problem, as I see it, is that the West is becoming more irreligious–and that IMO is a much greater concern than how other Christians feel about us. And so at a time when the world needs to be grounded more than ever in the message of the restored gospel the church is taking a major step in its effort to come out of its hiding place–and it is doing it by promoting its true identity as the Church of Christ.
Jack: Oh, I understood you. I don’t agree, though, at least not in the US. You basically agree with the white Christian nationalists (and maybe you are one, what do I know?) that religion is under siege and nobody believes in God anymore and it’s a calamity that must be overcome!!! But what I’m seeing is that WCNs have more power than ever and are using it to control the rest of the country in ways that were unfathomable for most of my life. Women are bleeding out in parking lots because WCNs are so anti-abortion that miscarriages are being tracked and criminalized along with other medical needs to save women when a pregnancy goes wrong. LGBTQ people have been protected by anti-hate-crime statutes since the 90s, and suddenly the WCNs are getting laws changed back to harm these people. We’ve got states trying to put the Ten Commandments in schools and government buildings with no such privilege to other religous texts. At least 2 supreme court justices (who are both Catholic) have said they would like to get rid of birth control.
Remind me again who is under siege here? Given that Evangelicals will never accept Mormons as Christian, from where I’m sitting, the Mormons are yet again siding with their oppressors and carrying water for those who will turn on them. The only religious freedom being protected is WCN. When it contradicts with Jewish laws, mainline Protestant views, Muslim views or any other views, well, suddenly this is a “Christian nation,” so those people don’t get a say.
Amen hawkgrrrl!!!
Persecution complex, paranoia, fragility, aggression, hate, fear: your name is WCN.
One of my favorite bumper stickers:The Christian Rght is neither.
I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know much about pedagogy. Crafting age-appropriate lessons about history seems incredibly difficult to me.
As an archivist, what I do know is the way people’s faces light up when they actually get to use an original document or item (called a primary source) to study. With a primary source there is no interpretation to filter out; no well-meaning historian scrambling to figure out what to include to stay within a certain page or word limit. Avid readers love reading early, marked-up and edited drafts of their favorite novels.
There are people who state that the reason for the Civil War was “States’ Rights.” Broadly speaking, that is true, but it is incomplete. I currently live in South Carolina, the first state to secede. I interned at the State Archive. I have been able to read the original Declaration of Secession. The Declaration makes its case for secession by stating that the US Government, by not returning runaway slaves and working toward abolishing slavery, had broken the law and committed unconstitutional acts. Differences over slavery was the reason for secession.
We can’t learn from history if we don’t learn the actual history.
The Church declares that it possesses the fulness of truth. As a bastion of truth it has worked incredibly hard to hide aspects of its own history. The Church has the primary sources in its archives and vaults. Growing up from primary to young men to the elders quorum, any hint or question about the stone in a hat or anything else that wasn’t Joseph translating directly from the golden plates was met with instant correction, if not a blatant rebuke. Imagine my shock when, in a special video presentation between general conference sessions, president Nelson puts his face in a hat to show Joseph’s process. Because the church controlled the primary sources, it thought it controlled the narrative. A lie for the greater good is still a lie. People can adapt to difficult information. I see it all the time. The sudden revelation of a lie thought to be true is what is most damaging.
Teach actual history. Talk about the atrocious acts that were committed. Then focus on what can be done to avoid repeating those mistakes.
AdamL: Your comment reminded me of when I was traveling in Spain a few years ago. I always post extensive travelogues so others can follow along on our trips. We spent some time in Sevilla where Columbus is buried in a stately manner, and we saw a statue in Grenada of Queen Isabella receiving Columbus. But we also saw (at the Royal Palace which houses the archives) that Columbus’ crimes were well known in his day, and he was stripped of his titles by Spain as a result of his crimes coming to light. He was arrested and shipped back to Spain in chains to be put on trial for his brutality and his enslavement of the Taino people whom the Queen considered to be her royal subjects and hopefully her fellow Christians. (I’m not saying her motives were pure here, but they conflicted with Columbus’, and he was punished for it).
I got push back and questioning from conservative friends asking where I got this information, so I pointed out the source. The thing is, you could still go to Spain and see the statues and believe your rosy picture of Columbus was true. You had to read a little (truly not much) and dig a little. You had to see the artwork and ask a question or do a google search or read an article. But isn’t it a much more interesting discussion of history to determine the motives and opportunities, the achievements and the corruptions, all together?
Of course, seeing Columbus’ faults (which, let’s get real, are EXTREME–he wasn’t cheating at cards!) is a bit problematic for Mormons in particular since the BOM extolls him as the white savior of the filthy, loathesome, indigenous people which is a pretty crazy take given reality.
And then of course, we have Elder Tad Callister (emeritus general authority) hitting the podcast circuit to defend Columbus. Battled a BYU professor or two. All he did was confirm his white nationalist views while defending imperialism.
Anon: Once you see the white Christian nationalist narrative in the BOM, it’s impossible to unsee it.
The irony of the LDS defense of Columbus is it is very unlikely The Book of Mormon prophecy is of Columbus. A detailed argument about this can be found by searching the article “The Christopher Columbus Myth” found on the “Book of Mormonism” blog. I agree with the position advocated for by this article and highly recommend it for consideration.
If one reads the “Gentile Prophecy” in 1 Nephi 13 the problems with the Columbus association are obvious. The prophecy asserts:
(1) The spirit of God moves upon a Gentile man who ventures across the waters to the promised land where the seed of Nephi’s brethren (the Lamanites) are living. More Gentiles are then inspired by the spirit of God to cross the waters.
(2) Many multitudes of spiritually moved Gentiles settle in the promised land and scatter the seed of the Lamanites (this would be the indigenous / Native Americans).
(3) These Gentiles are white, and humble, having left a land of captivity to come to the promised land. These Gentiles brought with them the Bible and lived and taught the covenants of the Bible.
(4) The rulers of the homeland of the Gentiles goes to war against the Gentiles in the promised land and by the power of God the Gentiles of the promised land are delivered. The victorious Gentiles grow to become the most powerful nation on earth – “lifted up by the power of God above all other nations”.
It is crystal clear that the multitudes of Gentiles referred to are English and most likely English Puritans who were being oppressed by the Church of England. Put another way, the travel and settlement of the Puritan Pilgrims in New England perfectly fits the details of the 1 Nephi 13 prophecy. The “Gentile Man” would be one of the early Puritan leaders. The prophecy is sufficiently vague that it could include the totality of English settlers who left England in the 17th century and who settled in the American English colonies.
What is obvious is the prophecy has nothing to do with Italians or Spanish settlers. The prophecy excludes Columbus for the simple reason that Columbus NEVER SET FOOT IN THE AMERICAS or the land otherwise identified as “the promised land” and the land inherited by the the seed of Lehi.
Now ponder, why is it settled LDS history that the Book of Mormon prophecies of Columbus discovering America? No scripture supports this claim. The belief is the result of opinion that became a settled story and this story became history. And because of this history we have arguments today about a thing (the Book of Mormon prophesying of Columbus) that likely never happened!
The whole attachment of the USA to Columbus is a curious phenomenon. Colonial Americans did not recognize Columbus as special – they revered English explorers. But as America matured as an independent nation, the nation became attracted to narratives that detached America from England. The myth of Columbus became part of America’s story, joining Washington’s cherry tree and Ben Franklin’s kite, with the kite story actually being true!
Hawkgrrrl,
There’s 3 Nephi 21 where the Savior talks about the gentiles getting thrashed by the remnant of Lehi’s seed if they don’t behave themselves. He also says that they (the gentiles) will assist the seed of Lehi in establishing Zion–which almost gives the reader the impression that the gentiles will take a secondary role in building the Kingdom. And that’s not the only place in the BoM were the prophets warn the gentiles–and some of those warnings have to do specifically with checking their pride. Those are the sorts of things that are difficult for me to unsee–especially as I consider the current sociopolitical climate in the West.
A Disciple,
I could be wrong, but I think Columbus made landfall on the east coast of Central America during his 4th voyage–which, as one who is open to Sorenson’s theories about the BoM’s location, I find very fascinating.
Jack,
The Central America thesis for the Book of Mormon lands is similar to the Columbus theory. Both ideas originated in response to current events.
I’ve already explained the pro Columbus mythology that dominated America in the 19th century. The Central American identification for BoM lands began with Joseph Smith being made known of the 1840s books and research by John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood of Central America and the Yucatan.
As with Columbus, Parley P Pratt was outspoken in claiming certainty where certainty likely wasn’t warranted – see the BYU article:
“Joseph Smith, Central American Ruins, and the Book of Mormon” by Matthew P. Roper
The fascinating thing about tying the Book of Mormon to Central America is that while the geography and anthropology has a more desirable fit, the promised land theology is incongruous. By every indication, the USA is the land of the Gentiles (for good and bad), not the entire Western Hemisphere. Of course, Joseph Smith eventually expanded the promised land to all of the Western Hemisphere, but this is not what Nephi’s prophecy implies.