W H Y ?
The Book of Mormon Geography has not been revealed, and the LDS Church
takes no official position on where the exact Book of Mormon lands are located.
We do surmise they are located in the Americas for the Book of Mormon testifies
of the coming of Columbus to the promised land and that the 'Gentiles' would be
brought unto this land of promise, which has occurred. So why take the time
to study the Book of Mormon geography today? The truthfulness of the book
does not depend upon it. The gospel, which is primary, is independent of it.
We really never need to know the details of it, and chances are that the detailed
descriptions of the lands prior to the destruction at the death of Christ may
not be applicable today, as the whole face of the land was changed to a great
extent. So why?
So why study and concern your self with the Book of Mormon geography? Why
argue over land sites according to our own various personal opinions? Is it
just that we want to know or need to know? Or are there some better reasons?
Some make money on the issue of the Book of Mormon Geography by being able to
argue their issues the best and by selling books, maps, and related items
about their theory or model even though the Church 'Officially' states no
sanctioned opinion on the matter. Religious research societies do make it an
issue to the extent of discrediting various Church Authorities and Church
statements and publications on the matter of it both past and present. And
whether one wishes to put their head in the sand and ignore the issue or not,
the Church is under constant influence by those who do decide to make it an
issue. Of course on the one hand even they state it is not an issue, and then
on the other hand they publish consistently that which continues to support
their personal views on the matter as though the 'know' with absolute
assurance that their position is correct and regardless of other past and
present statements to the contrary, theirs is 'the correct model.'
Now, those who wish to sit back and be led without the process of personal
involvement will deserve what they get. And today, it seems that if a
'learned' professor connected to BYU states a prognosis, those who are so
easily led willfully accept the concept without any personal thought or
consideration of the past publications and statements by the Church and the
Church's anointed upon the matter, Which seems to turn the structure of the
Church upside down, basing 'belief' on 'intellectually contrivance,
determination, dissection, and analysis' rather than upon what comes from
those who are in the proper position of authority on the matter.
One Reason
(Least We Forget)
And such reliance of religious belief upon that which is basically
intellectually determined is but one reason for involvement in the question of
what is, and what is not proper Book of Mormon Geographical information. Two
months before his death, President Brigham Young revealed a confidence which
had been kept by a number of persons on a certain matter. President Young
stated that he took such a liberty of disclosure for a purpose. And that
purpose was that such information would not be 'forgotten'
or 'lost.' Now
today, we are in danger of losing that information in the Church due to the
propagation such theories of the Book of Mormon Geography which would deny as
truth that which President Brigham Young was so concerned about us losing
track of and forgetting. And this because only one 'myopic' theory of the
Book of Mormon Geography is actively being promoted in conjunction with the
Church's Educational Institutions while any other such theory which would
help to preserve that which such leaders as President Young would not have us
lose track of. This is one 'good' reason to become involved in the question
of Book of Mormon Geography. For either we do get involve, rather than
passively sitting on the side line under the assumption that such does not
really matter, or we are in absolute danger of losing that which is a part of
our religious heritage and background.
Now I do not believe that I am over reacting to this issue. For I see and
read in the reports information which is changing the past history of the
Church in a manner that favors one such myopic theory at the expense of
complete ignorance and denial of the absolute fact of the matter. The
putting forth of a theory is one matter, but to distort and destroy the
truth of history to do so is quite another, and there are those who are just
that dogmatic in their presentation that they so distort and change that which
is the truth of religious history into a fiction which best suits their own
contrivances. And the greatest danger is that those who know better are of
the disposition to passively sit by and let it happen. Too often has a
minority prevailed upon a majority with such lobbying tactics. And at least
I for one have determined that I cannot sit idly by and ignore the facts
of the matter that tend to rob us of those things that should not be 'lost' and 'forgotten' such as that which President Brigham
Young and others of the
Church both passed and present have taught, revered, and proclaimed as the
Lord's anointed just because an 'intellectually basis society' has determined
to displace such with their own contrivance and 'theory' upon the matter.
Now the other question, at hand is, 'Is a known geography of the Book of
Mormon needed to know of the book's truthfulness and to gain the religious
benefit from the text? And the obvious answer is no, it is not required.
So we really do not need proof of the actual land sites. Regardless of
geography, skeptics thwart the Bible as not being true and we know an awful
lot about the Biblical lands of the Old and New Testaments. The addition of
actual land sites does little to persuade them. Fact is, if you don't know
of the truthfulness of the matter from other than physical evidence, then
you'll always be seeking, defending your position and you will always be
challenged about what you believe. So of what benefit is having a
knowledge of actual geography going to yield?
~ Is the Book of Mormon true? Here is your
proof! ~
Does having physical evidence make something 'more true' if it is already true?
Does physical evidence actually strengthen conviction? What is stronger, what
you can hold in your hand or that which your soul knows by the witness of the
Spirit of God to your very inner being? Which is more real, the burning
testimony of truth from God or the physical evidence of something? The senses
can always be deceived. Can such deception exist in the testimony of the
Holy Ghost to your heart and soul? Those who are skeptical as to such things
may never learn of their existence. For it is by faith that such things are
accomplished and when one refuses to exercise their own faith then they must
needs be lost to the spiritual things of God and His Kingdom. Perhaps it is
better that the geography of the Book of Mormon never be found or revealed.
Because if left unknown, it would always be placed upon the basis of the
exercise of faith to come to know of its truthfulness and not on overwhelming
physical evidence. And is that not where it should be, based on the spiritual
and not the physical? And even with all the 'physical evidence' of the world,
men who are of such disposition will continue to argue the pros and cons of
the matter based upon their own dissection and analysis of the matter. So
'knowing' the geography does not solve the question of the truth of the Book
of Mormon for men would still chose to interpret such known geography
according to their own minds on the matter.
A Second Reason
(Making It Live)
Yet I already have that spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon and know
that it is true based on the witness of the Holy Ghost to my spirit and soul,
and so now I want to know of the lands of the Book of Mormon. I want to feel
that additional feeling and understanding of knowing whereof these people
walked and talked and lived. Not in a manner to increase the truth of the
matter to me, but in a way that brings more life and more
color to the pages of the Book of Mormon by placing the events in their
tangible natural settings. It is the added feeling, understanding, and
appreciation one gets from walking the places of Jerusalem where Jesus walked
after already knowing that He is the Savior. Thus, I do not feel that the
study of the Book of Mormon Geography is of any great benefit to the non
believer and those of the world. But to he that knows of its truth what more
can be the next step but to see it come to life upon the sites where it
actually occurred? Thus I do want to know. I want to know because I already
know the book to be true, and I want it to live, I want to feel it and
experience it physically now that I know of it spiritually.
A Third Reason
(Active Involvement Fosters Learning)
Some may say it is a waste of time and effort to search for the Book of Mormon
geography. I don't think so. I learn more about the Book of Mormon by doing
so. And I believe that Mormon, who lived post-destruction era, was careful in
his abridgment not to conceal the geography of the Book of Mormon from us,
but quite the opposite in that he was careful to give us what still was
basically true in respect of its geography even to him in his day, about 400
AD. Thus I have to believe that a careful study of the Book of Mormon, its
land descriptions coupled with the scriptures and other information from other
sources such as church leadership statements, scholarly inquiries, historical
information, archaeological insights, geography information and other sources
of data, could likely produce a good mapping of the Book of Mormon lands.
And this is what I will proceed to do on these Book of Mormon Geography web
pages. That is, I intend to present the information that I have come up with
and the logic of it, in an attempt to utilize the internet to broaden this
inquiry and study by what should prove to be an exchange of additional
information and ideas. So E-Mail me, as some others have already done, pro
or con, just not blasting I would hope, as you are a quest on my pages. My
E-Mail address can be found at the bottom of this page.
Responses to E-Mail Concerning the Book of Mormon
- I have
received an increase in e-mail regarding this page. Instead of answering
separately, as some are repetitive, I will include this new response to e-mail
section to my Book of Mormon page.
Much To Do About Zelph - A Group Response
* Response to inquiry regarding the various journeys of
the Nephites between Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi.
* Lehi's Landing Site Confirmed in 1822 - By forefather
of E-Mail source.
* Response to An E-Mail of Questions.
* From a first of of the year 2000 E-Mail, a response
about 400 miles, Elephants, and Peleg.
* Who Are the Aztec?
Articles About the Book of Mormon
The major portion of this page will consist of references to various articles
about the Book of Mormon Geography. It is my intention to eventually have
them presented in a logical systematic manner, but the process will evolutionary.
Article 1 - FROM BOUNTIFUL TO BOUNTIFUL
(Another Key to the Geography of the Book of Mormon)
This first and latest article contains additional geographical insights
into the lands of the Book of Mormon in conjunction with the October 1999
LDS Conference Reports. It will solidify much of what is discussed in the
earlier articles, which are sited hereafter, concerning the Geography of the
Book of Mormon. Though repetitive in nature, in light of this Conference
insight, I believe it of worth and revealing as to the Book of Mormon's
Geography.
The second article contains geographical insights into the lands of the
Book of Mormon. It will include article correlated reference readings.
The third article contains logic insights into the location of the
'small neck of land or narrow passage' that divides the Land North or
Desolation or Mulek from the Land South or Zarahemla or Lehi. Rather
than separate readings, this article references the Book of Mormon directly
for every reference expect the statement of the Prophet Joseph Smith quoted
from 'The Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith' page 267.
This fourth article relates to both of the first two articles. It further
connects Lehi's Landing and the location of the Narrow Neck to the occation
of El Nino. It further explains why the Chilean landing is not acceptable.
This fifth article relates to the 'Traditionl Landing Site' where Lehi
was suppose to have landed in Chile. Everyone seems to have heard this, but
not many can pin point it down from where. That is done in this article.
This sixth article relates to the 'Traditionl Land of Zarahemla' where
Mosiah I lead the faithful Nephites to safety out of the Land of Nephi.
This first article on Zarahemla compares its topology with that of Colombia.
