"no offense, but..."

 

(click to enlarge)

Brant Gardner's "The Heartland Versus Mesoamerica," part 1

Brant Gardner, who is a great guy, faithful Latter-day Saint, and careful scholar, is posting a 13-part series titled "The Heartland Versus Mesoamerica."

https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-the-heartland-versus-mesoamerica-part-1/

Part 1 is "A Foundation for Comparison."

I'll review the series in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.

This series promises to be useful for all Latter-day Saints and others interested in the Book of Mormon, for at least two reasons:

(i) Brant's "foundation for comparison" exposes one of the fundamental fallacies of the M2C theory (M2C=Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory)

(ii) Brant's series demonstrates yet again the Interpreters' unwillingness (and inability) to give their readers a fair, transparent comparison of alternative points of view (multiple working hypotheses).

IOW, Brant's series helps readers understand why the M2C narrative is imploding.

For clarity, I'll use M2C instead of Mesoamerica because the essence of Brant's Mesoamerican setting is M2C; i.e., he thinks Cumorah is in Mexico, not in New York. M2C reflects the belief that the designation of "Cumorah" in New York is a false tradition because the "real Cumorah" must be in southern Mexico to make the "Mesoamerican" model work. 

Otherwise, the "Mesoamerican" model would extend up to New York, an idea that John Sorenson himself labeled as "manifestly absurd." 

Surely Brant did not intend to confuse readers by avoiding the Cumorah issue which is at the "heart" of the differences between the two alternative settings for the Book of Mormon.

_____

To avoid being accused of taking things out of context, I'm doing this peer review as I would have if Brant had asked for my input before he posted this publicly. 

It's always fascinating to me how the Interpreters see everything in an adversarial framework. I've offered many times to collaborate with them, but they always refuse. This is only one of innumerable examples of how the refusal to collaborate produces an incoherent piece of work.

Original in blue, my comments in red.

_____

This post begins a series of blog posts in which I will compare two proposed locations for the Book of Mormon. An important caveat is that I have published on the Mesoamerican model and prefer it. Having stated that I do begin with bias, I will nevertheless attempt to deal with evidence more than prejudice. I will attempt to represent comparable aspects of both the Heartland and Mesoamerican models. 

You should delete this embarrassing disclaimer because if you really wanted to present a fair comparison, you could have asked for my input, especially since you purport to represent my views. 

Also important is the declaration that I present this information as my own studied opinion and intend no implication that my ideas represent The Interpreter Foundation or the Interpreter journal.

This disclaimer is gratuitous because every reader of the Interpreter knows that the Interpreters have always been 100% M2Cers who cannot tolerate a fair, accurate presentation of the "Heartlander" perspective, let alone an actual comparison.

The very first point of comparison is that it is going to be difficult to make the comparison. 

This is a good point, but it is a double-entendre. You frame the difficulty as inherent in the different methodology, but it becomes obvious in your piece that it is difficult for you personally to make the comparison. It would have been less difficult had you collaborated on the comparison.

The reason is that the two geographic models are built on completely different concepts of how one should arrive at a solution to the question of where the Book of Mormon took place. 

As we'll see, this is exactly wrong. Both models are based on the identical premise, but the "Heartland" is consistent, while M2C is inconsistent.

Although both models produce maps that reflect the locations of Book of Mormon named places, there is an extreme difference in how the models are created.

It's not really that different, as we'll see.

John L. Sorenson highlights what he considers the foundation for searching for a real-world location of the Book of Mormon:

The first place to seek for knowledge of the Book of Mormon context is in the book itself. Going back to the original is the basis of sound scholarship whenever anyone works with an ancient text. . . .

Building an internally consistent map is but the first step. Next we must match up Book of Mormon lands and rivers and mountains with actual places, location for location, as scholars have done for much of the information in the Bible.[1]

John's famous quotation omits the first step, which you seem to be omitting as well. If you and John and the other M2Cers really believed what John writes here, why do you look at Mesoamerica? The "book itself" never mentions Mesoamerica, or even America. 

The entire world is a potential setting, according to the "book itself." All we know is that the Jaredites, the Lehites, and the Mulekites left different unknown launching sites, crossed "the great deep" for an unknown number of days, and landed in an unknown area. (The Jaredites sailed for 344 days but even then we don't know if it was a straight line.). The "book itself" accommodates a setting anywhere in the world apart from the Arabian peninsula.  

Other more objective researchers who apply John's quotation have found settings in Malaysia, Eritrea, South America, and elsewhere, as you observed below.  

Although Sorenson’s model has become the most widely accepted of the Mesoamerican models for the Book of Mormon, Sorenson was not the only one who created an internal model. Some of those who created internal models never attempted the elaboration of attempting to place that model on a real-world location. The variation in the internal maps echoes the wide variation of the real-world models that have been proposed (covering, apart from the Heartland or Mesoamerican models, a Great Lakes Model, a Delmarva Peninsula model, a Baja model, South American models, and Hemispheric models).

The following are different models created to demonstrate the relationships of Book of Mormon internal locations:

Two more modern examples:

There are others, but these four are representative. Notice that while different, they all propose general similarities. Although the one published in the Improvement Era does not have the overall hourglass shape of the other three, it nevertheless places a narrow neck on the northern end of the Nephite lands.[2]

These maps illustrate another fallacy in John's famous quotation. The geographical descriptions in the "book itself" are not self-executing. The various proponents are not using facts, but instead their own assumptions about what the text means.

All of these "internal maps" conflate different terms to mean one geographic feature; i.e., the "narrow neck of land" from Ether 10:20 is assumed to be the same as the "small neck of land," the "narrow neck," the "narrow passage," etc. That assumption is not required by the text, and actually contradicts normal principles of interpretation, which recognizes that different terms refer to different things. Otherwise, the author (or translator) confuses readers by using different terms for the same thing.

Note how different the shape of the map becomes when the conceptual map, based on the Book of Mormon text, is compared to the two Heartland maps:

As with different conceptual models, these latter two Heartland maps were created by two different people.[3] What is immediately noticeable is that while both the Neville and Coon maps are placed in the eastern half of the United States, they have no obvious narrow neck as do the conceptual models. 

Here you have already exposed the fallacy of your assumption. You seek an "obvious narrow neck" when the "book itself" refers to a small neck, a narrow neck, and a narrow neck of land. And you assume said "narrow neck" should be "obvious" when looking from outer space--even when it is also described as a "small neck."  

Readers should ask what Joseph Smith, as translator, meant by those terms. For example, the term "narrow neck of land" was commonly used by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. when they described battles during the Revolutionary war. They described numerous such "narrow necks" that were strategic in battle, as I briefly noted here: 

https://www.lettervii.com/2022/05/narrow-and-small-necks.html  

Of course, their geographies do place a narrow neck on the map, but how is it that the conceptual models can be so dramatically different from the Neville and Coon maps?

This rhetorical question is easily answered. The earliest concept of Book of Mormon geography, promoted mainly by the Pratt brothers, assumed a hemispheric model in an hourglass shape, with Panama as the "narrow neck." When Stebbins and Hills developed the "limited geography" that Sorenson, you and other M2Cers adopted, they rejected the hemispheric model but retained a conflated narrow neck interpretation that has persisted by tradition, not by rational analysis.  

The conceptual maps and the Heartland maps begin with very different starting points. 

The principal difference, with respect to the "narrow neck," is that the conceptual maps conflate the different terms, while the Heartland maps assume different terms refer to different things.

Where the conceptual maps begin with the Book of Mormon, the Heartland maps began with the commitment to the Hill Cumorah: “For over 10 years, the majority of people did not doubt that Cumorah was really in New York, and the prophets were consistent in their teachings about that fact.”[4] 

It is not reasonable to claim that the "conceptual maps begin with the Book of Mormon" because they don't use the "book itself" but instead their interpretation of the text.

W. Vincent Coon corresponded with Ed Goble about the beginnings of this geography. In part of an email exchange, Goble noted: “I always believed Cumorah was in New York, but couldn’t make the rest work in the early days.”[5]

You probably shouldn't be citing Ed Goble, whom I know well and who doesn't appreciate the way you are manipulating his views. At the very least, you should ask Ed what he thinks now instead of what he said 20 years ago in a private email. If you don't have his contact information, I'm sure he'll allow me to share it with you.

The two different starting points unsurprisingly lead to different conclusions. By beginning with the declaration that the New York hill where Joseph Smith found the gold plates was the very Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the rest of the geography had to be imagined in ways that made that beginning focal point fit. 

It's better to avoid pejorative rhetoric if you want to present this as your "attempt to deal with evidence more than prejudice." Instead of "imagined" how about using "understood" here?

As Goble mentioned, it wasn’t an easy fit.

Another example where you should use Ed's current view instead of a private email from 20 years ago. But it's also strange that you would cite Goble as an authority on the Heartland without mentioning his academic credentials, because later in your article you focus on those credentials as important and relevant. 

Although there have eventually been maps printed that show how the Book of Mormon fits the Heartland, the recent maps differ substantially from the original in the Goble and May book.[6]

This is confusion and distracting. What is the point of referring to old concepts if you're supposedly comparing "Heartland" to M2C today? Is your series focused on the history of the alternative theories, similar to John Sorenson's Source Book? If so, you should explain that at the outset. If not, and you're just showing older ideas for rhetorical purposes, you are undermining your position because M2C has had a long history of different ideas as well. 

This unusual slanting of the map to create a Nephite North was undoubtedly inspired by a similar slanting of the Mesoamerican map in order to fit the north/south orientation of the internal models.[7] It does not appear in any of the subsequent Heartland models.

Yes, so including this map here looks gratuitous, not informative.

Beginning with a definition of the expected geography rather unsurprisingly leads to finding that very geography. 

Keep this thought. You should also use it when you discuss M2C.

As Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff note: “in research as in life one is far more likely to find what one looks for than what one neglects.”[8] 

Keep this thought, too. You should also use it when you discuss M2C.

The two very different beginnings to the search for a real-world location for the Book of Mormon make a comparison between the two extremely difficult. 

You might want to revise this because readers can see that the difficulty is in your mind, not in the actual comparison. Readers understand the difference between assuming different terms refer to the same thing and assuming different terms refer to different things. Readers also understand how terms such as "narrow neck of land" were used in Joseph Smith's day.

This difficulty stems not only from the geographical beginning points but also from the Heartland position that the geography the text describes is not as fundamentally important as a posited theological position on geography.

This is a misdirection that you should rewrite because you know Heartland takes the position that the geography the text describes is both (i) fundamentally important and (ii) consistent with the New York Cumorah. It's not a "theological" position on geography; it's a statement of fact by Oliver Cowdery, who had personally visited the repository in the hill. 

In their book proposing the Heartland location for the Book of Mormon, Bruce H. Porter and Rod L. Meldrum list the priorities they used to identify Book of Mormon lands:

The proposed methodology presented in this book utilized four highly corroborative resources that assist in coming to an understanding of the lands described in the Book of Mormon text. . . .

1. Book of Mormon prophecies and promises testified of in relation to the Promised Land and the people associated with it.
   
2. Inspired and revealed statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith on geography.
   
3. Physical “real world” evidence, such as correlating civilizations in the correct time frame, archaeological findings as described within the text, cultural lifestyles, genetic relationships, and linguistic ties.
   
4. Geographical indicators or passages contained within the Book of Mormon.[9]
   

Here you switch horses by discussing the Porter/Meldrum approach, but that is a straw man argument because Porter/Meldrum did not provide a detailed map. If you're going to compare models, you need to be consistent. Previously you used my map, which is a valid comparison. Your paper is shifting from one argument to another, which undermines your credibility.  

There can be reasoned discussion of their points 3 and 4 because they relate to factors that are open to scholarly inquiry. The first two, however, are matters of faith. They may be important underpinnings of the Heartland model, but they are not available for scholarly comparison. They are personal, and one person’s faith in a model should not be argued against a different person’s faith in a different model. Thus, the blog posts in my 13-episode blog discussion will necessarily be limited in the type of evidence that can be examined.

This is a puzzling argument. Referring to the "book itself" is a matter of faith, including the descriptions of geography and the hints at culture, linguistics, etc. 

Although one’s faith in how a model fits into Latter-day Saint theology and history cannot ultimately be challenged, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does have an official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon. The introduction to the Gospel Topics essays explains the vetting process:

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of ChurchofJesusChrist.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.[10]

This statement about the purpose of these essays demonstrates that these essays were never intended to replace the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, and authentic historical sources. 

Therefore, the statement on Book of Mormon geography may be seen as officially sanctioned by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve apostles. 

Your use of the term "officially sanctioned" here is problematic for two reasons. First, these essays have not been canonized. Second, the essays are subject to change at any time without notice, and in fact the geography essay has been changed without notice. The essays are merely a collection of "accurate information from many different sources," but are not a complete or exclusive source of truth on the various topics.

It states:

The Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.

Right here we can all see that the Church's position relies on the teachings of the prophets, not the "book itself." Nothing in the text refers to America, or the ancient Americas, or any other geographical location with a modern name. You need to revise your essay to accommodate this reality, because so far you have rejected prophetic teachings about the setting. 

This is especially ironic because the same prophets who taught that the events took place in America, starting with Joseph and Oliver, also taught that Cumorah/Ramah is in New York. You need to explain why you accept the prophetic teachings about America but reject the prophetic teachings about Cumorah. There is also the problem that this essay never mentions Cumorah, which suggests the essay focuses on the aspects of Book of Mormon geography about which the prophets have never taken a position.  

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself accepted what he felt was evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations in both North America and Central America.[11]

Note that they include Joseph Smith’s ideas about geography in that statement.

Except they did not refer to Joseph's "ideas about geography." That's your spin. And the two cited examples are not the same, as anyone can see by reading the entire quotation.

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 first example is a letter Joseph personally wrote to Emma. Joseph referenced the "plains of the Nephites." The text refers to "plains" four times for the Nephites and four times for the Jaredites. He also explained that the mounds of the Nephites, along with their skulls and bones, constituted "proof of its divine authenticity," referring to the Book of Mormon.

The second example are anonymous articles published in the Times and Seasons in 1842. The footnote explains "Although it is not clear how involved Joseph Smith was in writing these editorials, he never refuted them." There are several reasons why he may never have refuted them, at least in print, but when he wrote the Wentworth letter in March 1842, Joseph did refute Orson Pratt's speculation about Central America. The essay doesn't mention that Joseph reiterated the New York Cumorah later in 1842 when he wrote the letter that is not D&C 128:20, describing "glad tidings from Cumorah" even before the Book of Mormon was revealed. 

This series of blog posts will examine questions about the geography of the Book of Mormon based on evidence that can be determined from the text of the Book of Mormon and from qualified scholars (almost always degreed scholars) to create comparisons of how the Heartland and Mesoamerican models fit into a geography and then into a known historical context.

We're all confident that you will do a good job explaining your views this way, but you need to start by explaining why you accept the teachings of the prophets about America, while rejecting their teachings about Cumorah. 

Your next step should be to explain the relevance of "qualified scholars" when the unanimous conclusion by all experts in Mesoamerica, apart from a handful of LDS scholars, is that the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with ancient Mesoamerican culture. 

Based on your past work, your analysis will consist of comparing the two models based not on the "book itself" but on your assumptions and inferences (interpretations) regarding the text. Comparing alternative interpretations will be useful for all readers of the Book of Mormon, assuming you make fair comparisons.

[1] John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985), 5, 6.

[2] John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events, A Sourcebook (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990), 95 and 118 for the Gunsolley and Layton models, respectively. For the 2018 Student Manuals: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual-2018/appendix-sites?lang=eng. For the Virtual Scriptures Conceptual Map: https://virtualscriptures.byu.edu/book-of-mormon-conceptual-map.

[3] The first is the version Jonathan Neville proposed, which is an undated version of the map from his book Moroni’s America (Jonathan Neville, Moroni’s America. The North American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Digital Legend, 2016): https://bookofmormonevidence.org/the-heartland-overview/. The second is attributed to W. Vicent Coon, taken from “Who Originated the Heartland Model,” https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Heartland%20Model.htm. The map is not present in Coon’s book, but the book provides more details on his model. See W. Vincent Coon, Choice Above All Other Lands, Book of Mormon: Covenant Lands According the Best Sources (Salt Lake City: Brit Publishing LLC, 2008).

[4] Edwin G. Goble and Wayne N. May, This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation (Colfax, Wisconsin, Ancient American Archaeology Foundation, 2002), 10.

[5] W. Vincent Coon, “Who Originated the Heartland Model?” https://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/Heartland%20Model.htm.

[6] Goble and May, 75.

[7] See Sorenson, 1985, p. 35-38. Sorenson himself did not use “Nephite North” as an explanation, but it has often been applied to the way Sorenson explained why his model did not follow the expected north/south orientation.

[8] Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff, The Modern Researcher (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985), 198-99.

[9] Bruce H. Porter and Rod L. Meldrum, Prophecies and Promises: The Book of Mormon and the United States of America (New York: Digital Legend, 2009), 1, 16. A slightly less detailed version of the four follows the first paragraph in page 1. I have added the set with greater detail form page 16.

[10] Gospel Topics Essays, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/essays?lang=eng

[11] “Book of Mormon Geography,” Topics and Questions https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng.