I have moved

In case you come across some of these old posts, I have moved my blog to http://mormonheretic.org

Come join me over there.

Book of Mormon Geography

About 7 years ago, I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon lands didn't take place in Central America, but rather South America. Lately, I've been studying the issue again, and came across a theory that the Book of Mormon didn't take place in the Americas at all, but rather in Malaysia (known as the Malay Peninsula.) Has anyone heard or studied this hypothesis?

So, I decided to learn more about the different ideas of BOM geography. James Sorensen has a book published in 1991 where he gives a short synopsis of the various (approximately 80) theories. Many are similar, and here are the major categories of theories.

(1) Internal Theories. These are maps which just read the BOM and ignore where they might have occurred, but try to figure out rough distances, and major landmarks that the true map must exhibit. This is a good starting point for "real-world" maps to compare themselves to.

(2) Hemispheric Models. Mormons originally thought that the Book of Mormon peoples covered the entire North and South America. Most serious scholars now doubt this, but many church members probably still believe this today.

(3) Central America Models. Most scholars support this general theory. While there are disagreements about where the "narrow neck of land" exists, such as Panama, Mexico, Guatemala, etc, these theories can be lumped into this category.

(4) South America Models. Joseph Smith is reported to have said that Lehi landed 30 degrees South of the equator, in what would be modern day Chile. There are several theories that try to confirm this, and most people who support this theory believe that most of South America was under water, and that the continent rose up during the major earthquakes mentioned in the BOM during Christ's crucifixion in the Old World.

(5) The Great Lakes Theory. This proposes that since the golden plates were found in NY, the BOM lands must be nearby, and proposes that the Great Lakes were the Sea East, West, etc.

(6) The Malay Theory. This theory says it would have been much easier for Nephi to travel a 4000 mile journey to the Malay Peninsula than a 16000 mile journey in open seas to the americas. The author notes better language similarities, better DNA evidence, and other evidences to support his ideas, while clearly noting that he is not sure how the plates got to NY.

I'm not trying to promote one theory above another, although some seem more plausible than others, and was wondering what people think of these alternate theories. I know the Central American theory is the most accepted theory, but it does seem to have some flaws that are worth noting. Does anyone have any information pro or con on these other theories? I'm curious what people think, and if anyone has anything to say about this.

LDS views on evolution

I know the LDS church has no official views on evolution. I had someone ask me what I thought about it, and frankly, I haven't given much thought about it. As I understand, there are people at BYU who believe in evolution, but I think they believe that evolution has limits, and don't rule out that God created the world.

So how do people reconcile evolution with creationism? What do you think about "intelligent design"?

Why are the 12 tribes of Israel important?

The LDS Church has a list of 13 general beliefs, which was composed by Joseph Smith in the 1830's. It does not cover everything the church believes, but is a good guide. In the 10th article of faith, it states, "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes".

First of all, why do we care about the 10 tribes? None of them appeared to have any redeeming value. Israel (Jacob) had 10 juvenile delinquent sons, who tried to kill their own brother Joseph. One of these sons slept with someone he thought was a prostitute, who turned out to be his sister. Other sons slaughtered an entire group of people who had just been circumcised.

As time moved on, we learn the 12 tribes of Israel split into a northern and southern kingdom. The northern kingdom pretty much was wicked the whole time, while the southern kingdoms of Judah and Benjamin were wicked most of the time, but had more periods of obeying God.

I just don't understand why these tribes are supposed to be held in esteem, because it really doesn't appear to me that they were ever worthy of the blessings of the Lord. Everything they do in the Bible appears to show that they were generally wicked. I know that God promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that they would have posterity without number, but if the children were so wicked, do they merit more consideration than any other group of people?

So the 3 questions I would like answers to are these:

(1) Why does anyone care about the lost 10 tribes?
(2) Why is this restoration of the lost 10 tribes even mentioned in the 10th article of faith?
(3) If God is no respecter of persons, do the lost 10 (or 12) tribes merit more consideration than any other group of people?

I'd love to hear what anybody has to say. These are sincere questions, are are not intended to rile anybody up, though I know they may sound heretical, hence the name of this blog.