Parallel: Migrations to the Americas - Part 5

In Part 1 2, 3, and 4 of this Parallel, I list four points about the two migrations from the Book of Mormon that are important for our discussion.

• The approximate date when they began their migration
• Their method of travel to the Americas
• The ethnicity of the people who migrated
• The location they were living in when they began their migration

In this Part, I add a fifth point about the two migrations, the places in the Americas they reached at the conclusion of their migrations.

Book of Mormon Geography

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

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

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

A Hemispheric View of the Book of Mormon Geography

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

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

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

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

A Limited View of the Book of Mormon Geography

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

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

Please refer to Ash's article for more information about the two views of Book of Mormon geography, including his explanation why Joseph Smith and subsequent Prophets accepted a Hemispheric Geography of the Book of Mormon.

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

LDS Beliefs About Book of Mormon Geography are Folklore

In Religious Truth: Revelation or Folklore? - Part 1 and Religious Truth: Revelation or Folklore? - Part 2 I discuss folklore vs. the scriptures in religious information. Since the Book of Mormon does not identify in terms of modern geography the locations of places in the book, and as far as we know the Lord hasn't revealed the precise location of those places, we must classify all statements about Book of Mormon geography and the size and locations of the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations as folklore. This includes statements by LDS Presidents, LDS Apostles, and scholars such as Sorenson. In recognizing that such statements are folklore, we also recognize that the statements might be true or they might be false.

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

The Book of Mormon doesn't say that the Nephites and Lamanites were so numerous that they covered the whole of North, Central, and South America. The Book of Mormon doesn't say that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians (the Introduction is not part of the canonized text of the Book of Mormon). In fact, as I discuss in Parallel: Migrations to the Americas - Part 3 the Church recently changed the wording of the Introduction to eliminate the word "principal".

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

The change of the word "principal" to the word "among" was in apparent recognition by Church authorities that the common belief of Church leaders and members in the Hemispheric view of the Book of Mormon geography was not correct. This change does not imply that the Limited view that has been defined by LDS scholars is correct. This change only implies, I think, that the Hemispheric view is not correct.

The Parallel between Science and the Book of Mormon about Migration

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

Religious Truth: Revelation or Folklore? -- Part 2

In Part 1 of this post, I discuss, from a general viewpoint, that religious beliefs can be revelations from God and thus true, or they can be folklore or beliefs that might be commonly held but haven't been substantiated as truth. In this Part, I explain how I came to understand that folklore may not be true. The lessons I learned in this regard have helped me handle conflicts between LDS Church doctrine and science, as well as to better understand Church doctrine and Church history, and I hope my experiences will be useful to others.

I grew up in a small town in Southern Utah. I believed that everything that was said by a General Authority was true. I also believed that the Book of Mormon was the religious history of the American Indians and that the Lamanites had scattered over the face of the Western hemisphere and were thus the principle ancestors of the Indians.

I served a LDS mission from 1956 to 1958, and I served primarily in West Virginia. As a missionary we spent our time doing door-to-door tracting. While in Clarksburg, West Virginia, we encountered quite a few members of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I knew nothing about their religious beliefs, so I studied LDS Church history to better understand why the early leaders of that church hadn't gone west with Brigham Young.

General Authorities May Be In Disagreement

While studying LDS history, I came upon a conflict between Joseph Fielding Smith of the Council of the Twelve and B. H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy. Two General Authorities of the LDS Church who disagreed about a point of history. I don't remember the subject of their disagreement, but I realized that both couldn't be right. One had to be right and the other had to be wrong, or they both had to be wrong. This was the first time that I realized that LDS General Authorities might say or publish incorrect statements. That was quite an eye-opener for a young LDS man. While doing this study, I came across a statement by Elder John Taylor that helped me solve the dilemma of two General Authorities being in disagreement (I call him Elder Taylor, because his statement was made before he became President of the Church). Elder Taylor said that the Church can not be held responsible for the statement of any Elder. The Church can only be held responsible for the scriptures. I don't know if Elder Taylor meant his phrase "any Elder" to apply to General Authorities, but I took it that way. I realized that if the Church is not responsible for statements made by General Authorities, then those statements are given as personal opinion not as revelation. This solved my dilemma about two General Authorities being in disagreement. I realized that General Authorities are not infallible and that they have personal opinions about religious and historical matters. This realization has been invaluable to me throughout my life, especially when I've encountered anti-Mormon literature.

Folklore is Common in the Church

Shortly before beginning my mission, I attended a fireside in which a professor at the College of Southern Utah in Cedar City talked about Mormon myths. One of the myths he discussed was the story of the origin of the Mormon Battalion that I discussed in Part 1 of this post. Another myth that he discussed was the common belief among Utah Mormons (maybe non-Utah Mormons too, I don't know) that the Negroes did not hold the Priesthood because in the pre-existence, they were neutral in the war in Heaven. They didn't follow Satan in the war, so they came to earth to experience mortality, but they didn't follow Christ so they were deprived of the Priesthood during their mortality. The speaker explained that even though that story about the Negroes was a common belief, it was not taught in the scriptures. The lesson I learned from that fireside, that not all beliefs that are commonly held by Church members have been substantiated as truth, has been helpful to my understanding of LDS doctrine and history.

Church Leaders are Human

The bottom line to this, as far as I am concerned, is that members and leaders of the LDS Church are not infallible. They are human and have the weaknesses of mortality that we all have. They have personal opinions about religious matters and may express those opinions, as well as make mistakes, in their sermons and writings. This human factor does not detract from their callings as Apostles and Prophets, Stake Presidents, Bishops, etc. It just means they are human like you and me. God has chosen them to be His leaders, but He does not violate their agency by preventing them from being human and from making mistakes as they fulfill their callings.

Compare Statements by Church Leaders With the Scriptures

Elder Taylor said the Church can only be held accountable for the scriptures, so when I hear or read statements from Church Leaders that seem unusual, I compare those statements with the scriptures and with official Church policies. If the statements are not taught in the scriptures or in Church policies, I consider the statements as personal beliefs, and I don't get overly concerned about them. The statements I'm referring to could be in Conference talks, BYU religious talks, talks by visiting authorities at Stake Conferences, books published by individuals, books and manuals published by the Church, and statements published in the Deseret Morning News and the Church News. Many LDS disagree that I include books, manuals, and newspapers published by the Church, because those persons consider such books as official statements by the Church. I include literature published by the Church because of the "human factor" of the committees that create the literature -- mistakes will occur. As an example of this, before my Mission President was called on his mission, his wife had been a member of a committee that approved manuals for use by the Sunday School. She told us about a particular manual that had been approved and had been used in the Sunday School but was later withdrawn because errors were discovered in the book.

Religious Truth: Revelation or Folklore? -- Part 1

The purpose of this blog is to track parallels between science and Mormon beliefs. In identifying and discussing the parallels, it is important that, from the Mormon viewpoint, the beliefs are considered true and are not just personal opinion or folklore. Truth in religion implies a basis of some kind in revelation from God.

The Scriptures are True

The scriptures, we believe, were revealed by God to ancient prophets, and most Latter-day Saints accept scriptural statements as being true.

Statements by General Authorities May Be Personal Opinion

Statements by General Authorities are usually accepted by Latter-day Saints as being from God, but we must be careful in accepting such statements, because the authorities may speak their opinions with no desire on their part to have their statements be considered revelation from God. In contrast with today, General Authorities during the 19th century often gave personal opinions in books and sermons. The Authorities today focus on basic principles from the scriptures and are less likely to propagate their opinions.

The Doctrine and Covenants explains when a Priesthood holder is speaking for God.

And behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth -- And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68:2-4)

Statements by General Authorities, as well as by other Priesthood holders, are considered to be the will of the Lord only if the persons were inspired by the Holy Ghost to make those statements. This implies that Priesthood holders may say things that were not inspired by the Holy Ghost and are thus not the will of the Lord. In fact, Joseph Smith said "that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." When General Authorities speak, we have to discern whether they are speaking for themselves or for the Lord.

Only the President Can Declare New Doctrine

More importantly, statements made by Church authorities that are not taken from the scriptures are official doctrines of the Church only when they are given by or are authorized by the President of the Church. President J. Rubin Clark explained it this way.

only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church.

This means that Apostles, or other Church leaders, can not declare new interpretations of the scriptures or new Church teachings as official Church doctrine. In addition, not all statements by Church presidents are given as official church positions. If a president gives a statement as the official position of the Church, he will announce it as a revelation, and the statement will be approved by the Council of the Twelve and will be sustained by the members of the Church. For example, Brigham Young repeated a common belief of his time that there were people living on the moon. That statement was obviously his opinion, and it was not given in the context of new church doctrine.

Folklore Fills in the Details

Every religion has information that should be considered folklore. Folklore might be true or it might be false, but it is accepted by people as being true, even though the truth of it has not been substantiated.

Folklore often attempts to explain situations or incidents that are not fully explained in the scriptures or in history. An example of folklore is the belief that Jesus was married. The scriptures do not teach that Jesus was married, and as far as I know no President of the Church has officially declared as Church doctrine that Jesus was married. There are historical documents that date back to the early centuries of Christianity that state that Jesus was married, but those documents have not been canonized as scripture.

Another example of folklore, from LDS Church history, is that the Federal Government came to the Church with a request that 500 men be formed into a Battalion to fight against Mexico. The truth is that Brigham Young sent Jesse C. Little to Washington to see if the Federal Government could assist the migration by employing Mormons to "fortify and defend the west". President Polk "offered to aid the pioneers by permitting them to raise a battalion of five hundred men, who were to join Colonel Stephen W. Kearny, Commander of the Army of the West, and fight for the United States in the Mexican War. Little accepted this offer." I expect that the men who volunteered for the battalion didn't know that Brigham Young had instigated the negotiations that led to their service with the U.S. Army, and they probably believed that the Federal Government had started the affair. Thus a new folklore was born.

Folklore can be hard to weed out of the Church, because members, including priesthood leaders and General Authorities, may have believed the folklore for generations and may have a difficult time accepting the fact that the stories are just folklore and are not "gospel".