What do Mesoamericanists believe about geography, horses, and the Law of Moses. This law could not be accomplished without animals and grains as described in the Book of Mormon which have not been found in Mesoamerica, but only in the Heartland.
John Sorenson, seasoned Mormon scholar and early proponent of the Tehuantepec limited geography theory, has publicly bemoaned the overwhelming unlikeliness of locating Book of Mormon animals in the ancient New World without substantial reinterpretations of the text:
Sorensen said, “What kind of animals did the Nephites have? The terms cattle, horses, sheep and so on are mentioned at several points in the Book of Mormon, in the Nephite record. And it is dismaying to some, some who wish to be dismayed, I believe, (and a few others who wish an answer could be provided) why there are not cows like we mean cows, horses like we mean horses, sheep like we mean sheep. The fact is, however, is that all the ancient studies say those animals simply were not present in the New World. Period. They were not here.
Well, 99.9% period. There is some little possibility of some horses as we know horses. The likelihood, however, is that we must go back to the text again, we see the internal having to articulate constantly with the external. We get some ideas from the internal, look outside, try to get enlightening, illuminating information, and then we may have to back into the text, and re-read it, and understand: “Let’s see now, when Mormon said this, what did really mean? Did he mean what I think he means? Or shall we read it the way he wrote it an meant it in his mind? We do not know that when he said ‘horse,’ he meant our kind of horse.” Sorenson, John L. “The Book of Mormon in Ancient America.” Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies Lecture Series. Provo. 1992.
Did Sorensen read Mormon’s mind on what Joseph meant when he translated, “our kind of horse”??
See my blog here about Horses in North America during Book of Mormon times.
Another Mesoamerican Theorist said, “I would say in evaluating the Book of Mormon, it had no place in the New World whatsoever. And we’d have to look for the place of the Book of Mormon events to have taken place in the Old World. It just doesn’t seem to fit anything that he [John Carlson] has been taught in his discipline, nor I in my discipline in anthropology, history; there seems to be no place for it. It seems misplaced. It seems like these are anachronisms. It seems like the items are out of time and place, and trying to put them into the New World. And I think there’s a great difficulty here for we Mormons in understanding what this book is all about.” Matheny, Raymond T. “Book of Mormon Archaeology: What Does the Evidence Really show?” Sunstone Symposium. 25 Aug. 1984.Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1993
Editors Opinion
I believe it may be important to understand the other most prevalent geography theory of the Book of Mormon, the Mesoamerican Theory. As one who believes that the Book of Mormon events happened in North America, I also believed for over 40 years (or was taught by Sunday School, seminary, and church literature), all about Mesoamerica, and nothing about the Heartland. Only after much prayer and search did I find the Heartland Model, and was blessed to meet Rod Meldrum 12 plus years ago.
The Heartland Model is the most accurate theory of all. In fact, knowing that Hill Cumorah in NY is the only hill where the Nephites and Jaredites had their last battles, I listened and read and prayed about this one aspect, and it has become an important part of my testimony. The Book of Mormon happened in the Land of Promise of the United States of America, as Elder Perry said, “The United States is the promised land foretold in the Book of Mormon—a place where divine guidance directed inspired men to create the conditions necessary for the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Elder L. Tom Perry Ensign Dec. 2012
The Rejection of the Two Cumorah Mesoamerica Geography Theory for The Book of Mormon by Stephen Reed
“The so-called Two Cumorah Mesoamerica Geography Theory for The Book of Mormon was created by a member of The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (The RLDS Church).
His name is Louis E. Hills or L.E. Hills. He was a member of the First Quorum of The Seventy of that Church. He introduced this theory in 1917, during World War I. In 1918, one year later, the Spanish Flu Pandemic was in full force. To read Steven’s entire blog visit here: Steven’s Website here: https://twocumorahsolution.blogspot.com/
Witnesses of the Heartland Model
Nearly all those familiar with the early statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith touching on potential Book of Mormon lands know that he clearly indicated them to be in North America. This is evident in the historically verified accounts wherein he declared revelation such as in the Wentworth Letter, the American Revivalist Account, the Zelph Accounts and Joseph’s handwritten letter to Emma while on Zion’s camp. In addition, the prophet revealed a Nephite altar at Adam-ondi-Ahman, mentioned the land of Manti was near Huntsville, Missouri, and revealed that this land was “the borders of the Lamanites” (see D&C 54:8). Furthermore he received revelation from the Lord for the location of Zarahemla (see D&C 125:3) and New Jerusalem (see D&C 84:1-6) which Christ Himself declared to be on Book of Mormon lands (3 Nephi 20:22), both of which are absolutely located in North America. These accounts and their indications are not speculation based, but historically documented fact.
John Sorenson the “Dean” so to say of Mesoamerican Geography says the following. “There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd. Hundreds of thousands of Nephites traipsing across the Mississippi Valley to New York, pursued (why?) by hundred of thousands of Lamanites, is a scenario worthy only of a witless sci-fi movie, not of history.” Mormon’s Codex, p. 688.
Mesoamerica as Hinterlands
From Moroni’s America Chapter 28 by Jonathan Neville
For decades, LDS scholars have labored to establish and defend a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon because they believed they were vindicating what Joseph Smith wrote (or approved) in three articles published in the Times and Seasons on 15 September and 1 October 1842. The discovery that it was someone other than Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, or John Taylor who wrote the articles,[i] led to the further discovery that Benjamin Winchester wrote the articles linking the Book of Mormon to Central America, and that William Smith edited and published them.[ii] These discoveries raise serious questions about the original premise for both hemispheric and Mesoamerican theories of Book of Mormon geography. Although now discredited, these Times and Seasons articles have influenced generations of Latter-day Saints—members, scholars, and leaders[iii]—and have been frequently cited by those who advocate a Mesoamerican setting.
In response to the Winchester saga, some proponents of the Mesoamerican setting now claim the Times and Seasons articles are ancillary, or even irrelevant, to Book of Mormon geography. This chapter accepts that premise for the sake of argument and examines Mesoamerican geography on the merits, without the implied imprimatur of Joseph Smith’s authorship—or editorial approval—of the Times and Seasons articles. As John Sorenson wrote, “If we are to progress in this task, we must chop away and burn the conceptual underbrush that has afflicted the effort in the past. We must stop asking, as so many do, what have the Brethren said about this in the past?”[iv]
[i] Matthew Roper, Paul J. Fields, Atul Nepal, “Joseph Smith, the Times and Seasons, and Central American Ruins,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22/2 (2013): 84-97. In that article, the authors present the results of a stylometric analysis that show none of the three candidates tested could have written the articles. The authors nevertheless conclude that “Joseph Smith is the most likely author of the composite text” because they erroneously assume that no one else was “said to be working in the printing office.” In fact, there were several employees, but most importantly, William Smith was publishing the Wasp from the same office and much—often most—of the content of the Times and Seasons consisted of articles mailed to Nauvoo or excerpted from other publications.
[ii] Jonathan Neville, The Lost City of Zarahemla (Legends Library, Rochester NY 2015).
[iii] For example, Joseph Fielding Smith included one of them in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and they have been widely cited and quoted in books and articles about Book of Mormon geography, including Mormon’s Codex, cited below, and numerous articles published by FARMS and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Studies, both affiliated with BYU.
[iv] John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (FARMS 1990, 1992) p. 210.
Filters and Terms of Reference
Sorenson lists terms of references, or “filters,” that he believes must be applied to any real-world candidate for The Book of Mormon setting. This section examines his three “major filters,”[i] applies them to the text and evidence, and then performs the same assessment using three additional filters. The six filters are:
1. Scope of territory (Sorenson)
2. Destruction in 3 Nephi (Sorenson)
3. Sophisticated society (Sorenson)
4. Law of Moses (Discussed Below)
5. Promised land
6. Infrastructure (Ores, Towers, Fortresses, Buildings, Roads)
[i] Numbers 1-3 are copied verbatim from Mormon’s Codex, pp. 20-21.
Filter 4—Law of Moses. Criteria related to the law of Moses as described in the text must be accounted for in any acceptable theory. “Lehi and his people diligently kept the law of Moses. Nephi affirmed… that they did ‘keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled’ (2 Nephi 25:24)…. The Nephites were to continue to keep the law of Moses until it was fulfilled.”[i]
The Book of Mormon people did not casually observe the Law of Moses. They “were strict in observing the ordinances of God, according to the law of Moses.” Alma 30:3. It was obedience to the law of Moses that Korihor criticized:
“Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.” (Alma 30:23)
When groups failed to observe the law of Moses, they “had fallen into great errors.” Alma 31:9.
The law of Moses and its implications for Book of Mormon geography deserve an entire book, but this filter can serve its purpose with just a few of the key points.
Architecture
One major difference between the Mesoamerican and American settings is visible in architecture. Mayan architecture is typified by large stone temples, made of cut stones and featuring steps by which one ascends to altars or the tops of the temples. By contrast, Hopewell architecture relies on uncut stone and ramps to ascend. Altars and ramps of earth are also common.
According to the law of Moses, observers of the law must use ramps and uncut stones. “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, . . . And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone, for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon” (Exodus 20:24-26). Ramps were also important for leading animals to be sacrificed.
“The altars of the temple were made of stacked stone, not hewn stone. “The word in Exodus 20:25 which is translated as ‘tool’ is the Hebrew חרב which most literally means ‘sword’. There explains that a sword is designed to shorten life, while an altar is designed to lengthen life by being used to achieve atonement. It makes sense, therefore, that one should not be used in the formation of the other.” Rashi, Medieval French Rabbi.
Moroni’s America continued. “This distinction is apparent in Israel, where archaeologists can use the distinction between ramps and stairs to determine whether an ancient site was built according to the law of Moses. One archaeologist describing the discovery of Joshua’s Altar on Mt. Ebal, Israel, explains it this way:
Hebrew altars can be distinguished from pagan altars in 5 respects: 1. They are made of uncut natural stone. 2. Ramps, never stairs. 3. Hebrew altars are square. 4. Hebrew altars have their sides oriented to the 4 points of the compass (NSEW), as we see in the orientation of the tabernacle.[ii]
In Mesoamerican sites, there are no ramps; in the American setting, sites have no steps. In Mesoamerica, stones are carved; in the American setting, they are unhewn. Whoever created the Hopewell structures complied with this aspect of the Law of Moses, intentionally or not. Whoever created the Mesoamerican structures did not comply with the Law of Moses, even in the Nephite time period.”
Amberli Nelson Said,
3 Essential Truths about Nephite Observance of the Law of Moses
“First Truth: Not only did the Nephites “strictly” keep the law of Moses (as indicated in 37 verses in the Book of Mormon (see Alma 30:3, Mosiah 13:29-30, Jarom 1:5), but they did so with delight as it was seen by them as both a collection of types of Christ and a means of coming unto Him. Occasionally even the Lamanites were known to “strictly” observe the law (Hel. 13:1). Second: In “observing to keep the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the Law of Moses” (2 Ne. 5:10), the Nephites would have necessarily observed all the feasts or “holy days” given to Moses by Jehovah. These are recorded in Exodus and Leviticus and are known as “holy convocations” or “rehearsals” and they typify the life and mission of Jesus Christ in profoundly beautiful ways. Third: It was absolutely essential for these Jewish Lehites to be brought to a land that would provide an abundance of all the plants and animals required to keep the Law of Moses, with its concomitant Holy Days or festivals. Based on the latest archaeological findings, it can now be irrefutably shown that the Heartland of North America is the only location in the Western Hemisphere where all ten of the essential items were found anciently including; lambs, oxen, goats, doves, barley, wheat, grapes, and altars made of stacked, unhewn stones. These aforementioned items have not been found in the archaeological record of the pre-Columbian peoples of Mesoamerica.” “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me… in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar…” Exodus 20:24 – 26 Amberli Nelson MBA Hebrew/Jewish Symbology Expert
Calendar
Another aspect of the Law of Moses was determining the time for various religious events. The ancient Hebrews used a lunar calendar. Psalm 81:3-6 notes that the moon determined the time for feasts: “Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day. For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of Jacob.”
Sorenson notes that “A lunar-based calendar was apparently basic to Nephite/Mulekite calendrical calculations (Omni 1:21). That being the case, a systematic record of moon phenomena would have been an element in their astronomy/calendar knowledge system… The moon-based calendar of the Jews of Jerusalem surely was carried forward by the Lehites and Mulekites when they emigrated from the near East to the New World.”[iii] He notes that some scholars believe the Mayans used lunar months at one time, but their primary calendar was solar. In fact, the Mayan lunar series was not incorporated until the 3rd Century AD.[iv] The best-known calendar, used by the lowland Maya, used 13 numbered days in connection with 20 named days, producing a 260-day cycle. Another version of Mayan calendars was based on the Haab’, a roughly solar calendar consisting of eighteen 20-day months plus five days at the end of the year. This resembled the Egyptian solar calendar.
Like the Hebrews (and presumably the Nephites), the Hopewell culture also used a lunar calendar to schedule feasts.[v] The largest geometric earthworks complex in the world is near Newark, Ohio, and is around 2,000 years old. The site’s “lunar alignments precisely encode the orb’s very complex cycle, with moonrises and moonsets rotating north and south over an 18.61-year cycle.”[vi]
To summarize, Mesoamerican culture was based primarily on a solar calendar, while the ancient American (Hopewell) culture, like the culture of ancient Israel, was based primarily on a lunar calendar.
Plants and Animals
Proof of the existence of species at the time and place mentioned in the Book of Mormon requires first, determining what species were mentioned, and second, where the species were encountered. Consideration of the Law of Moses is important because it filters out species that would not, and could not, be used as part of strict observance of the law. Specific species of plants and animals are essential for observing the law of Moses. Strict obedience to the law of Moses does not allow substitutions; for example, for a peace offering, the law specifies “a bullock, a sheep, or a goat,” (Leviticus 22:27). When he arrived in the land of promise, Nephi indicated that he found the animals they needed to observe the law of Moses. He wrote “we did find upon the land of promise… that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat.” 1 Nephi 18:25.
One unnamed animal pertains directly to the law of Moses. The Book of Mormon has sixty-six references to “flocks.” Mosiah 2:3 explains the significance: “And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses.” The flocks were so important that when Limhi prepared his people to escape from the Lamanites, he “caused that his people should gather their flocks together…the people of king Limhi did depart by night into the wilderness with their flocks and their herds.” Mosiah 22:10-11. When Alma led his people out of bondage, he “and his people in the night-time gathered their flocks together.” Mosiah 24:18. Presumably the reason they took their flocks when they escaped, despite the evident complications and the pursuit by the Lamanites, was because they needed them for their offerings and sacrifices.
The Hebrew term translated as “flock” ordinarily applies to sheep, but when used as the plural “flocks” it can include other kinds of domesticated animals. “Book of Mormon terminology fails to clarify what species composed Nephite ‘flocks’ and ‘herds,’” according to John Sorenson.[vii] However, Alma defines the term flock as meaning sheep. “For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock?” (Alma 5:59) Other uses of the term, such as “flocks of sheep” in 3 Nephi 20:16, could be interpreted as purely metaphorical, but if the people did not have sheep, what sense would the metaphor make? Christ is referred to as the Lamb of God throughout the text, from 1 Nephi through Ether.
Sheep, of course, are one of the animals required under the law of Moses, along with goats, bulls, and oxen. Enos reiterated that the people of Nephi did raise “flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.” Enos 1:21. Mosiah emphasized that the people grew wheat and barley, both needed for the law of Moses. Mosiah 9:9. None of these species are found in Mesoamerica, which is why Mesoamerican advocates suggest the small Mexican brocket deer might be a goat and the tapir an ass.[viii] By contrast, there is evidence of each of these species in the American setting.
Pre-Columbian wheat and barley have both been documented in North America (but not in Mesoamerica). Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper have noted, “beginning in the 1980s, discoveries of pre-Columbian barley started to be made, substantiating the Book of Mormon claim.”[ix] The Fort Ancient State Memorial Museum in Oregonia, Ohio, has this ancient barley on display. Miller and Roper also note that the Vikings claimed to find wheat in North America when they arrived in the year 1000 A.D. Despite this evidence in North America, because they are defending the Mesoamerican setting, Miller and Roper write, “while the Book of Mormon makes reference to wheat (e.g., Mosiah 9:9), it might have been another grain translated as ‘wheat.’”[x] Sorenson explains: “Exactly what species Nephite ‘wheat’ referred to is unclear, but it apparently was not the wheat familiar to us, which was unknown in Mesoamerica; presumably the name was applied to one of the aforementioned grains.”[xi] But if the Nephites were using a different grain, how did they comply strictly with the Law of Moses?
Ripening of Barley and the Law of Moses
Animals that match the terms used in the Book of Mormon apparently existed in North America before Columbus. Nephi claimed he found “the goat and the wild goat.” (1 Nephi 18:25). These species were permitted as food under the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 14:4-5). It’s interesting that Deuteronomy also specifies “the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer… and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois,” but Nephi listed none of these. Early French explorers noted the presence of “wild goats” along the Mississippi River, in Indiana and Illinois, and in Florida.[xii] Miller and Roper suggest the “goat” may have been a species of domesticated deer that resembled a goat. They note that men accompanying De Soto observed “herds of tame deer”[xiii] in Ocale, a town in northern Florida. Another Spanish historian recorded a similar observation in Apalachicola[xiv]—right in the area where Lehi landed, according to the American model.
As evidence that ancient people in Ohio had goats, the Mound City Group Visitors Center, a Hopewell Culture National Historic Park near Chillicothe, Ohio, features a copper goat horn that dates to Book of Mormon times.
Sheep and lambs are mentioned 77 times in the Book of Mormon. Many references are figurative, but as Alma 5:59 indicates, the people were familiar with sheep and did tend to them. William Richie, an archaeologist, reported that he found remains of domestic sheep in western New York dating to 100 A.D., about 30 miles east of the Hill Cumorah.[xv] At least one Hopewell sculpture of an animal that looks like a sheep has been found.
Enos referred to “all manner of cattle of every kind,” a description similar to that of French explorers who described seeing “wild bulls, wild cows, wild cattle, and vaches sauvages” that are now considered to be terms used “as the designation of both the moose and the elk.”[xvi] Buffalo, or bison, were often described as cattle. There are several accounts from the 1500s of buffalo-like creatures in Florida, but it is not known what species the explorers were describing.[xvii]
Evidence of the specific animals required by the Book of Mormon is far more abundant in the American setting than it is in the Mesoamerican setting. Sorenson notes that there is evidence of other Book of Mormon animals from the right time period that fit the American model, such as the horse, mammoth and mastodon remains at St. Petersburg, Florida, that date around 100 B.C.[xviii]
Regarding Mesoamerica, Sorenson concludes that “there are plausible creatures to match each scriptural term.”[xix] He suggests that the deer or tapir may qualify as horse, ox, ass and goat, while the paca or agouti may qualify as sheep, his theory being that Joseph Smith didn’t know a more accurate term to translate the original word on the plates. But “deer” and “pygarg” (the term for antelope) were both terms used in Deuteronomy that presumably could have been used in the translation of the Book of Mormon and would have been better fits to the species in Mesoamerica. It is inconceivable that a paca or agouti, both of which are rodents and therefore unclean under the law of Moses, would have been considered “sheep” by the Nephites and used for their sacrifices.
At any rate, calendars, architecture, plants, and animals all tend to show that this important aspect of Nephite culture was feasible in America, but not in Mesoamerica.
Conclusion: The American model passes filter #4 and Mesoamerica does not (unless one assumes the Book of Mormon was not translated accurately when it came to naming animal and plant species). Mormon’s America Chapter 28 by Jonathan Neville
[i] John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks, editors, King Benjamin’s Speech, (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Provo, Utah 1998), pp. 150-151.
[ii] Adam Zertal, Ph.D , Joshua’s Altar on Mt. Ebal, Israel, http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-of-joshua.htm (accessed 29 April 2015). See another description of the altar at Mt. Ebal here: http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bible-and-archaeology-archaeology-and-the-book-of-joshua-the-conquest
[iii] Mormon’s Codex, p. 432-435.
[iv] See, e.g., http://mayan-calendar.com/ancient_supplementary.html
[v] E.g., see Brad Lepper, Hopewell Astronomy, Ohio History Connection Archaeology Blog http://apps.ohiohistory.org/ohioarchaeology/hopewell-astronomy/
[vi] Stephanie Woodard, “Ohio’s Magnificent Earthworks, an Ancient Astronomical Wonder,” Indian Country Today, June 16, 2012, accessed April 29, 2015 at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/06/16/ohios-magnificent-earthworks-ancient-astronomical-wonder-118726
[vii] Mormon’s Codex, p. 313.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Wade E.Miller and Matthew Roper, “Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, (herein Animals), http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/animals-in-the-book-of-mormon-challenges-and-perspectives/, note 69, citing Daniel B. Adams, Last ditch archaeology. Science 83/4 (1983), 28-37; N. B. Asch and D. L. Asch, “Archaeobotany.” In C. R. McGimsey and M. D. Conner (eds.) Deer Track: A late Woodland Village in the Mississippi Valley (Kampsville, Illinois, Center for American Archaeology, 1985): 79-82. Note that this discovery was made in the Mississippi Valley.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Mormon’s Codex, p. 306.
[xii] Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Volume 4 (Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology 1874) pp. 81, 88 and 133, available online on google books. (herein, Memoirs).
[xiii] Animals, footnote 97, citing Hernando De Soto, Narratives of the Career of Hernando De Soto (New York: Allerton Book, 1922), 162.
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] William Richie, The Archaeology of New York (The Natural History Press, Garden City, NY 1965), p. 242.
[xvi] Memoirs, p. 87.
[xvii] Memoirs, pp. 99-100.
[xviii] John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1996), p. 298.
[xix] Ibid, p. 299.
Heartland or Mesoamerican Animals?
Below is some information from the Book “New Approaches to the Book of Mormon”. They share how difficult it is to fit the animals of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerican. Most animals of the Book of Mormon fit a North American geography and they are very difficult to place these animals into a Mesoamerican setting. Read below:
New Approaches to the Book of Mormon Brent Lee Metcalfe, editor Chapter 8.
Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography
Deanne G. Matheny
Animals
Like domesticated plants, domesticated animals form an important component of civilized life. The Book of Mormon mentions many different kinds of animals, for the most part those which would have been found in an Old World setting. Table 1 lists animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon and their possible Mesoamerican correlates as suggested by Sorenson (1985, 299). Animals such as the dog or honey bee, which present fewer problems for a Mesoamerican setting, are omitted.
Table 1.
Book of Mormon Animals and Their Suggested Correlates19
| Cattle, oxen, cows, calf | deer, bison, camelidae |
| sheep, lambs | sheep, camelidae, paca, or agouti |
| goats | brocket, deer |
| swine, sow | peccary (wild pig) |
| horses | horse, deer, tapir |
| asses | tapir, camelidae |
| elephants | mammoth, mastodon |
| curelom | sloth, bison, tapir, mammoth, mastodon |
| cumom | sloth, bison, tapir, mammoth, mastodon |
Sorenson discusses the terminology used for animals in the Book of Mormon and notes that some labels are unclear. He mentions the frequent references to flocks and herds such as the following: “And they did raise many flocks and herds, yea, many fatlings” (Hel. 6:12). [p.303] He suggests that these flocks and herds could have included deer and pigs (peccary) and various fowls such as turkey, Muscovy duck, Tinamou duck,20 quail, pheasant, partridge, dove, currasow, cotinga, roseate spoonbill, macaw, chachalaca, and parrot (1985, 292-93). He also suggests that the term flocks could apply to hares, rabbits, pacas, agoutis, and even fattened dogs.
However, many of these animals may have been considered unclean for consumption by Nephites, who according to the Book of Mormon kept the Law of Moses (see, e.g., Jacob 4:5, Alma 30:3). We do not know if the Nephites kept the dietary laws but Nephi exhorted them to keep the performances and ordinances of the Law of Moses, inasmuch as it was expedient, until the law was fulfilled (2 Ne. 25:30). It is stated in 4 Ne. 1:12 that they “did not walk any more after the performances and ordinances of the law of Moses.” If they had been keeping the dietary laws, it is unclear whether they abandoned the laws at that point.
If the Nephites kept the dietary laws associated with the Law of Moses, their classification of animals could have been based on those laws. The dietary laws given in the Old Testament state that only animals which have split hooves and chew the cud may be eaten. Prominent among such animals are cattle, sheep, and deer. In the Old Testament, prohibited birds are listed and laws are given concerning fish and other categories of animals. For example, the hare is declared “unclean” because “he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof” (Lev. 11:6). It is further noted: “Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean to you” (Deut. 14:7). A further clarification explains: “And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean until the even” (Lev. 11:27).
Such passages indicate that those who kept the Law of Moses and its dietary laws would not have kept flocks of either lagomorphs (hares and rabbits) or rodents (agoutis and pacas) because those animals would have been considered unclean. This also would suggest that the camelidae (llama and alpaca), even if they could be shown to have been present in Mesoamerica at the proper time and place, would not have been considered sheep-like. Their characteristics as measured by the dietary laws would likely have rendered them unclean for consumption. Chapter 8. Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography Deanne G. Matheny
