It hasn’t, perhaps, been the best of times to be an advocate of the so-called “Heartland model” of Book of Mormon geography. It may, in fact, be the worst of times. Certainly some of the major expressions of the theory have been coming under quite vigorous criticism of late. Here are a few examples:
“Jonathan Neville and the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority”
“Has the location of Cumorah really been revealed? An apostle says no.”
I have no idea at all who the author of the two articles above might be. However, I know very well who the author of the articles below is:
“A Review of the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon (Part 4): Parallelomania”
“A Review of the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon (Part 6): The Abuse of DNA Science”
“A Review of the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon (Part 7): Miscellaneous Errors”
In this context, it’s perhaps worthwhile to call attention once more to the Church’s recent official statement on “Book of Mormon Geography,” which includes the following:
The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas. . . . Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories.
Personally speaking, I myself would have far less interest in “Heartland” theories about the Book of Mormon than I do — and my interest, candidly, is already minimal — if their advocates weren’t continually suggesting that we who find their models unconvincing are apostates who reject the words of the modern prophets.
Posted from Jerusalem, Israel
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In