Skip to main content

A Major Non-LDS Press That Took Book of Mormon Geography Seriously

In a sort of introduction to the book version of Journey of Faith: From Jerusalem to the Promised Land, S. Kent Brown tells a short, little-known story about an experience he had while working at the BYU Jerusalem Center in April of 1996.
My friend, the late Charles E. Smith of Simon and Schuster Publishers, came to my office and brought a close associate, Mr. Emanuel Hausman, who was the president of Carta, the publisher of the most important atlases and maps of the Bible. During our conversation, unexpectedly, Mr. Hausman said, “I think that you ought to write an atlas of the Book of Mormon. I have read the Book of Mormon and believe that it is possible to create a series of maps for it. Carta would be willing to publish such an atlas.” I tried to hide my surprise. The thought darted quickly through my mind: “You just heard the publisher of the most distinguished series of atlases on the Bible say that he would be willing to work on an atlas of the Book of Mormon. Unbelievable.” (p. 2)

Brown mentions this only in passing, as it served as the first in a series of events that eventually lead to something very different: the Journey of Faith film. Brown is not clear whatever became of that project itself, but given that 20 years later nothing like that has been published, it is safe to say that it ended up not going anywhere. Still, I do not think that makes Brown’s initial thought any less relevant: the publisher of the most distinguished series of atlases on the Bible was willing to publish a similar set of atlases on the Book of Mormon. This is nothing that will make headlines 20 years later, but it is an example—and small one, to be sure—of a reputable non-LDS publisher taking work on Book of Mormon geography seriously. I guess Book of Mormon geography is not a TOTAL laughingstock among non-Mormons. 

Comments

  1. Problem is the maps would be made of the wrong area for the BoM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miles,

      It is not clear to me why you think you can make that judgement. I mean, nothing in my post, nor in the anecdote, indicates where they would have made the maps for. And even if it did, I don't see how you can be so sure that it is the wrong place. There is no revelation on the subject. So, I see no reason why you should be able to declare with utter certainty that any particular map is the wrong place. Such an assertion first requires a specific places to declare wrong, and it needs a reasoned argument as to why it was wrong.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently stressed that it is important for Gospel educators to be well-informed on controversial topics, not only by studying the scriptures and Church materials, but also by reading “the best LDS scholarship available.” I personally think it is imperative in today’s world for every Latter-day Saint—not just Gospel educators—to make an effort to be informed on both controversial issues as well as knowing reliable faith-building information as well.
(Given that Elder Ballard’s CES address was published to general Church membership in the Ensign, I think it’s safe to say that Church leadership also feels this way.)
An important step in the process of getting informed is reading the 11 Gospel Topic essays and getting familiar with their contents. But what’s next? How can a person learn more about these and other topics? What are the “best books” (D&C 88:118) or “the best LDS scholarship available”?
Here are 15 suggestions.
1. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith S…

“The Dominant Narrative is Not True”: Some Thoughts on Recent Remarks by Richard Bushman

The following is making its rounds on Facebook (from this video): Questioner: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant narrative?
Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. As I have seen this quote flash across my Facebook news feed and thought about how to make sense of it, I have been reminded of the short essay response questions I would often have on tests or assignments in college or even high school. It would not be uncommon for these questions to be built around a quote from an important schola…

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:


As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…