“DCP” wrote:Elsewhere on the web, my claim here (in a comment responding to a comment) that the development of limited geographical models for the Book of Mormon was primarily driven by close reading of the book’s text is being mocked. I said that panicked recognition of a lack of archaeological and DNA evidence for a hemispheric model wasn’t a motivator. It was, one of the mockers says, just pure coincidence that such models were developed. The lack of evidence wasn’t a factor at all.
Well, I stand corrected. Crick and Watson arrived at their double helix model for DNA in February of 1953, and the study of DNA took off thereafter. Within mere decades of February 1953, DNA analysis began to be applied to the Pre-Columbian Americas.
Which – coupled with a remarkable display of clairvoyance — explains why John Sorenson was down in Chiapas, in the very south of Mexico, on a dig with BYU’s New World Archaeological Foundation that began in January 1953. The DNA data from decades later that would ultimately force creation of a limited Tehuantepec model drove him to it. Obviously. Only small minds believe that historical causation works in just one direction. Sophisticated minds, at least when they badly need to do so, can believe that the Second World War was one of the causes of the Versailles Treaty and that Reconstruction caused the American Civil War.
And, of course, the origins of the limited-geographical Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon go back well before John Sorenson (who, however, remains its best-known advocate) to people like M. Wells Jakeman and, before him, to Janne M. Sjödahl at the start of the 1920s and, if we cast the net a bit further, to Louis Edward Hills (a member of what was then known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) in about 1917 — which makes the cause-and-effect relationship between post-1953 DNA discoveries and the idea of a limited geography even more remarkable. (For an extended discussion of the subject, see Matthew Roper, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,” The FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 225-275.)
And yes, it’s true that Latter-day Saint scholars seeking to identify a geographical setting for the Book of Mormon have tended to go where they reasoned that relevant evidence would be found rather than to places where they had decided that it wouldn’t be found. Is that really surprising? Researchers looking for genetic links to cancer don’t typically focus first on the Huntington Library’s holdings of Western Americana. Historians looking for the causes of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire probably don’t start their work with a census of elk herds in the Canadian Rockies. Similarly, those looking for evidence of the large cities described in the Book of Mormon for the Pre-Classic period are likely to search first in places where large cities were built in the Americas during the Pre-Classic period.
Another critic demands, with a straight face, that believers in the Book of Mormon prove it authentically ancient prior to trying to figure out where its narrative might have occurred and, therefore, prior to looking for supporting evidence in that location. Otherwise, he says, with every appearance of being serious, we’re putting the cart before the horse. Oy veh.
I feel the need to educate DCP on the evolution of the limited geography theory, and the reasoning behind it.
During the 19th century, American society was captivated by the widespread "Mound Builder" myth. This popular theory attributed the extensive earthen mounds and earthworks found across the eastern and midwestern United States to various non-Native American origins, such as Vikings, the Welsh prince Madoc, inhabitants of Atlantis, giants, or ancient Israelites. This intellectual climate significantly shaped early LDS thought, as the Book of Mormon's narrative of Old World immigrants establishing advanced civilizations in the Americas resonated strongly with these prevailing popular theories. Joseph Smith himself, in the 1820s, was employed as a "treasure-hunter," engaged in digging activities in Hopewell ruins located in upstate New York. This early, direct engagement with North American archaeological features indicates how the cultural fascination with mounds influenced the nascent LDS movement.
The plain fact is that the Book of Mormon itself exists as an explanation for the origin of the Native American peoples. This is how it was understood in the context of people who lived at that time. This was why it was written. This is the reason for the “principal ancestors” explanation which was subsequently changed.
So we begin with the first Mormon belief, that the Book of Mormon explains the origin of Native Americans in the Americas.
Joseph Smith and other early Mormon leaders endorsed what became known as the "Hemispheric Geography Model," which posited that the events described in the Book of Mormon took place across the entirety of both North and South American continents. This model often included the belief that the New World was unpopulated prior to the arrival of the Jaredites around 2000 BC, making the Book of Mormon peoples the "first and only inhabitants". This expansive geographical scope naturally directed early LDS attention to archaeological sites throughout the United States, including the Hill Cumorah in New York, where the gold plates were purportedly discovered.
It only makes sense to search the area around the Hill Cumorah, in New York. The two hills theory is a later invention to fit the lack of evidence.
According to contemporary accounts from participants such as Heber C. Kimball and Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Smith ordered an excavation into this mound. At a depth of approximately one foot, a nearly complete human skeleton was discovered. Notably, an "Indian arrow" was found lodged between its ribs, which was believed to have caused the individual's death. Following this discovery, Joseph Smith identified these remains as belonging to "Zelph," whom he described as a "white Lamanite" chieftain-warrior. Zelph was said to have been a general among the Nephites and to have been killed in battle. The accounts further specified that Zelph was known "from the hill Cumorah on East sea to the Rocky mountains," directly linking this North American find to the broader geographical claims of the Book of Mormon
Here we have the founding prophet himself completely confused as to the geographical relationship of the events of the Book of Mormon and their proper location.
Joseph Smith himself reinforced this belief in a letter to his wife Emma, describing their journey as "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 & their bones, as proof of its". This statement clearly illustrates his conviction that the North American mounds served as direct evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations.
Mormon trickster God deceiving Joseph yet again.
To be continued….