Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Nibley’s and Sorenson’s Disservice

From the very beginning, prolific writers such as Hugh Nibley and John L. Sorenson have centered their writings of Book of Mormon geography of the Land of Promise in Mesoamerica. Since so many scriptural listings of the geography did not and do not match Mesoamerica, these writers tried to change the scriptures to meet their model. In doing so, others, following later, have also tried to change scripture, or the facts, in order to present their models. This attitude has led to a widespread and ridiculous tendency to ignore scripture, unless it is agreeable to their model, and present the most outlandish ideas as to where the Book of Mormon Land of Promise was located.

This has done a great disservice to the Church, to the credibility of the Book of Mormon, and to those ancient prophets who so diligently wrote what they were inspired to write, and Mormon and Moroni so diligently abridged, and Joseph Smith so diligently translated.

A recent map sent to me shows one of these ridiculous ideas and the extent to which one of these Mesoamerican Theorists will go to create a model and then have to make changes to try and match scripture.
First of all, there is no geologic record of there ever being two seas or water ways nearly separating the Yucatan peninsula from Mesoamerica as shown in this map—but even if so, how could they be the south sea when the narrow neck of land is separated by the West Sea and East Sea? (Alma 22:32) Nor is Zarahemla separated by the South Sea as shown. Nor is Bountiful north of the Narrow Neck of Land. Also, the narrow strip of wilderness which ran from the West Sea to the East Sea (Alma 22:27), which scripture tells us separates the Land of Nephi from the Land of Zarahemla, is listed on this map as south of the Land of Nephi. Of course, one could go on with this map and show other discrepancies, like there being no Land of Many Waters north of the Land of Desolation (Helaman 3:4), but the point is the map is totally out of context with the scriptures. So why do these people create such ridiculous examples as this?

Because of the disservice Nibley, Sorenson, Joseph Allen, and others who have made such outlandish claims that the Book of Mormon geography of the Land of Promise matches Mesoamerica. And in so doing, these and other Mesoamerican Theorists have altered scripture to fit their models—thus, others following them, feel no compunction to follow suit and alter scripture to fit their own particular interests.

The fact is, however, that the scriptures are accurate as stated. They need to altering, changing, fudging, or ignoring—-they are accurate as they stand. To make changes, especially when considering the manner in which the Book of Mormon was written, abridged, and translated, there can be no tinkering with the statements. If a model of the geography of the Book of Mormon cannot stand up to the scriptures, then that model should be discarded—-not defended by changing scripture.

No comments:

Post a Comment