Misconceptions about the Book of Mormon
Misconceptions about the Book of Mormon
BMAF Director Dr. F. Richard Hauck has written the following material. We present it to this group with his permission.
The Book of Mormon’s geographic descriptions are very clear for Nephi, Manti, Zarahemla, the narrow strip of wilderness, the river Sidon and the demarcation line between the lands of Bountiful and Desolation. Individuals that propose alternative geographic associations for these locations that conflict with the information provided in the text do a disservice to the Book of Mormon and its authenticity. Literature concerning the Book of Mormon has been overwhelmed with conflicting theories relative to its setting and more new alternatives surface each year.
This problem of confused geography is not confined to those who promote and accept the “Heartland Theory” as the book’s setting in North America. The problem of false geography also exists relative to the numerous confusing theories presented for other North, Central and South American settings.
Drawing from Joseph Smith’s experience we might ask, Why does the setting of the Book of Mormon provoke such a, “stir and division among the people, some crying, ‘Lo, here!’ and others, ‘Lo there!?” Some individuals contend for the North American locations, some for the Central American locations, and others for the South American locations. Why does such a discrepancy exist among Mormon believers? Which theory is credible? They cannot all be correct!
There are a variety of issues that currently contribute to this confusion:
1. The Lord has withheld specific geographic information to test the faith of both the Saints and the investigators of the Book of Mormon and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He does this in accordance with Mormon’s comments in 3 Nephi 26:9-11 and Moroni’s wonderful assessment, “ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith” found in Ether 12:6.
2. Much of the Book of Mormon narrative was engraved in chiasms, an ancient format common to the Old Testament. The 1829 translation process changed those formats into our more common paragraph format which unfortunately has created some confusion. The geography verses in Alma 22 are a good example of chiasmus and confusion.
3. Many people interested in understanding the setting of the Book of Mormon want a quick fix. They either are not interested or are unprepared to dig into the text and find the illusive geographical correlations that do exist—so they make assumptions about the geography that have little or no basis. There are just too many quick fix writers and lecturers using modern maps to inadequately and even falsely explain ancient geographies.
4. There are individuals seeking financial gain or enhanced status in the Mormon society that use this confusion for self-promotion. Their undisciplined exercise of agency temporarily draws attention, fans, and money, which is all self-serving. Sadly such exercise in agency only perpetuates the misunderstandings that exist among the Saints. Self-promotion does exist and causes great perplexity among the Saints. Mark Hofmann’s forgeries thirty years ago can be considered an extreme manifestation of this problem. Other individuals swim in these same murky waters, individuals who are neither as blatant nor as criminal as Hofmann. And, like Hofmann, their works will be eventually exposed as false explanations of the book’s geography.
5. Printing errors introduced with the first edition of the Book of Mormon have contributed to the difficulty of understanding the book’s geography. Printing errors do exist in the Book of Mormon contributing to confusion in understanding its geography. Misuse of punctuation is a common problem. Occasionally the handwritten manuscript was misread, a classic example being the printing of “Jordan” in our editions of the Book of Mormon rather than the correct term “Jashon.” This printing error implies two separate places existed when in reality only one locality, Jashon, was mentioned by Mormon twice in two separate military campaigns.
6. The perpetuation of cherished but erroneous ideas, some of which have become Mormon traditions often dating back to the days of the Church’s founding, tend to influence many of the Saint’s perceptions of the book’s geography. How often have we heard someone insist on the validity of an illogical concept based on the teachings, writings or remarks of some venerated individual? A classic example of this type of thinking involves the concept that the Nephite and Lamanite armies marched all the way from mountains and jungles of South America through the mountains and steaming forests of Central America and the bare deserts and endless plains of North America to fight a final battle in upper New York state.
From BMAF member Doug Kiester: To Brother Hauck’s 6 points making it difficult to understand the geography from the text I would add a seventh.
7. Our preconceived notions make us blind to what’s written. When we disagree with a verse, there is a tendency to wonder why Mormon made such an error. A good example is when Moroni captured the city of Mulek on the east sea coast which is north of Zarahemla. Mormon in Alma 53:6 calls Mulek one of the strongest holds in the land of Nephi. As the land of Nephi is in the south, Mormon must have made an error. I believe it is quite clear that he did not.
Almost all of the factors blinding us to what is written cannot hold us bound if we read the text, If we accept what is written as scripture from the mouth of prophets who were there, and get nervous any time we find ourselves “explaining” away any verse that is uncomfortable to us. The most correct book upon the face of the earth is not riddled with geographic errors.