Review of Terrence J. O’Leary, Book of Mormon: A History of Real People in Real Places (Pennsauken, NJ: BookBaby, 2020). 274 pages. Softcover, $20.
Abstract: Terrence O’Leary enters the field of books attempting to describe a geographical and cultural background to the Book of Mormon. Placing the action of the text in Mesoamerica, O’Leary explains the Book of Mormon against his understanding of the geography and therefore culture of the Book of Mormon peoples. He begins with the Jaredites, then moves to the Nephites and Mulekites. Along the way, he uses historical data to back up his ideas. While I agree with much of what he has written in principle, his lack of expertise in the cultures of Mesoamerica leads to times when he incorrectly uses some of his sources.
For Latter-day Saint scholars of the Book of Mormon from the Utah-based church, it becomes too easy to forget that we are not the only children of the Restoration who are interested in the text. In particular, the Community of Christ has scholars who continue to approach the Book of Mormon as a historical record, even though the Community of Christ itself has institutionally moved away from an emphasis on historicity. It is a welcome addition to the literature on the historicity of the Book of Mormon to have Terrence J. O’Leary write his findings. He grew up in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and continues through the 2001 name change to Community of Christ. He attended Graceland College (now Graceland University) which is affiliated with the Community of Christ.
The chance to have more serious scholars working on the Book of Mormon is wonderful, and it is important to cooperate in [Page 2]examining the text that is important to both traditions. Unfortunately, there appears to be an invisible wall separating the Book of Mormon scholars in the two traditions. Latter-day Saint writers seldom cite Community of Christ writers, and at least in O’Leary, there seems to be the reciprocal for Community of Christ writers not citing Latter-day Saint scholars. A simple but glaring example is that O’Leary places the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica but has no bibliographic entry for John L. Sorenson. Anyone looking at a Mesoamerican background for the Book of Mormon who does not at least acknowledge, let alone engage, Sorenson is immediately lacking research depth and perhaps unwittingly attempting to cover ground well-covered before without necessarily adding anything new.1
I find myself agreeing, in principle, to perhaps 80 percent of what O’Leary has written, but my hesitations come from the lack of scholarly discernment he shows in using his sources. This occurs very early when he cites Ether 5:30–31 about the brother of Jared moving the mountain Zerin. O’Leary cites a Chinese legend, then another author who suggests the miracle occurred in a pass through the Altai mountain range known as the Dzungarian Gate (pp. 6–7). I miss any solid analysis of why O’Leary elects to send the Jaredites eastward (though it is not an unusual suggestion in the literature), and then why it would be possible to associate the mountain Zerin’s absence with the Dzungarian Gate. While interesting, O’Leary has not built a strong case.
He has the Jaredites arrive in Olmec territory in Mesoamerica, a very common connection in the literature on Book of Mormon historicity. However, one of his evidences is the use of Chinese characters on Olmec celts. Since he has the Jaredites going through Asia, the Chinese connection becomes plausible, but he is totally reliant on Michal Xu’s work suggesting that identifiable early Chinese characters appear on some Olmec celts (p. 19). This sounds interesting, but O’Leary clearly didn’t follow the academic discussion of those celts, which has totally repudiated the theory. Xu read as Chinese characters pieces of a large artwork that existed on the stone before it was broken up into celts. The scholars have clearly demonstrated that they could be reassembled to show the original picture. Therefore, they were not Chinese characters at all.
[Page 3]O’Leary’s chapter 7 is entitled “A Skin of Blackness,” and is a very good addition to the literature discussing that topic. Much of his analysis is not new and has appeared in different essays over the years, but his suggestion that the “&c” found in the 1830 edition of what we know as Alma 3:14–17 suggests that “the complete text of the curse was lost and is not found anywhere in the Book of Mormon” (p. 125). It is a new and interesting argument.
My biggest criticism of O’Leary is that when he begins to use sources on the history of central Mexico, he demonstrates that he has only a layman’s understanding of those sources. Hubert Howe Bancroft was a great synthesizer but should not be used as a primary source. He interpreted his sources as he retold them. Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl would appear to be a great source, since he was fluent in the native language and declared that his history in Spanish was based on pre-Contact histories. Unfortunately, Ixtlilxochitl also modified his stories as he told them to enhance possible biblical connections for the benefit of the Spanish fathers. He needs to be used with care as a source, which it seems O’Leary does not know.
O’Leary sees connections between the Aztec stories of Hueman (Huemac is probably the more likely name based on Aztec sources) and Mormon. O’Leary doesn’t explain how stories about Mormon, whose people died out, would influence Aztec stories collected some eight hundred years later. He also seems unaware that the timing of the Huemac stories is much later than Mormon.
This is a book that can give a reader a nice overview of Book of Mormon history set against a real-world scenario, but the reader should beware that much of the evidence used to create a connection between stories in the Book of Mormon and stories from the Maya or Aztecs are strained. If I take the liberty of adjusting the language from D&C 91:2–4: “There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations … therefore, whoso readeth it, let him” already have a good background in the subject.
Brant A. Gardner (M.A. State University of New York Albany) is the author of Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon and The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon, both published through Greg Kofford Books. He has contributed articles to Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl and Symbol and Meaning Beyond the Closed Community. He has presented papers at the FAIR conference as well as at Sunstone.
Facebook
X
Youtube
Tiktok
Instagram
8 Comment(s)
TwoCumorahSolution, 05-21-2022 at 3:21 pm
I find it fascinating Brant Gardner is upset at CofC scholar O’Leary for not quoting LDS John L. Sorenson who plagiarized from RLDS Louis E Hills, whose invention of The Two Cumorah Mesoamerican theory in 1917 was used by CofC Scholar O’Leary who Brant Gardner is upset with for not quoting LDS John L Sorenson who plagiarized from RLDS Louis E Hills, whose invention of The Two Cumorah Mesoamerican theory in 1917 was used by CofC Scholar O’Leary who Brant Gardner is upset with for not quoting LDS John L Sorenson who plagiarized from RLDS Louis E Hills, whose invention of The Two Cumorah Mesoamerican theory in 1917 was used by CofC Scholar O’Leary who Brant Gardner is upset with for not quoting LDS John L Sorenson who is a plagiarizer of RLDS scholar L.E. Hills who died from being hit by an automobile in 1925.
While CofC/Restoration Branch Shirley Heater was a contributor at Kirk Magelby’s BMAF which later became BookofMormonCentral which employs plagiarizer Brant Gardner.
Brant Gardner is really intelligent. Increase your intelligence by visiting: https://twocumorahsolution.blogspot.com/
Then Brant Gardner can restore his personally integrity by stop calling Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as Book of Mormon geography idiots.
Replies
Brant A. Gardner, 05-21-2022 at 4:17 pm
I really struggled to decide whether to approve this post. If it had been about anyone else, I don’t think I would have. It would have had more merit of “TwoCumorahSolution” had understood that the reason for citing Sorenson was not for geography but for culture.
Replies
TwoCumorahSolution, 05-24-2022 at 5:45 pm
Brant Gardner’s strugglings are amusing. He’ll embrace a false Two Cumorah Mesoamerican geography theory for The Book of Mormon, without realizing the original owner and copyright holder, RLDS member Louis E. Hills, created his theory using a Rand McNally map and an Ethnology report he ordered from the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. I have Hills’ document stating the same.
Louis E. Hills lived at 201 S. Willis Ave in Independence, MO and his limited Mesoamerican map was meant for the flaws in the earlier Hemispheric map created by the RLDS American Archaeology Committee, not for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But Brant Gardner will waste his education in an upstate New York University trying to prove Hills’ map is true while proclaiming Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery where Book of Mormon geography idiots, then declare “we need to see more Mesoamerica in The Book of Mormon,” then declare anyone who disagrees as “flawed.” Such ridiculous logic will obviously garner you millions of followers.
Replies
Brant A. Gardner, 05-24-2022 at 7:10 pm
I have not approved all of TwoCumorahSolution’s posts. They are repetitive on the one point that Hills had a Mesoamerican model. That is not disputed. It is also not relevant to the book reviewed. Future diatribes that continue this singular argument about Hills will likewise not see approval.
Jerry Grover, 05-21-2022 at 7:56 pm
Actually Sorenson dedicated 3 pages (87-89) to discussing Hills 1917 model in his 1992 geography Sourcebook. Sorenson’s model is quite different (Grijalva instead of Usumacinta, Kaminaljuyu instead of Copan, Hill Cumorah near Tuxtlas instead of Mexico City). In my personal conversations with Dr. Sorenson he was complementary of C of C persons working on geography.
Jerry Grover, 11-21-2021 at 4:17 pm
Yes, it would have been nice if someone would have published something somewhere. The initial knee jerk response by some to this was that it was insulting to Mesoamerican peoples, Michael Coe was especially outspoken which is of course not a scientific response, just a political one. However, near the end of his life Michael Coe himself ndicated in private correspondence that he did see some Asian influence in Mesoamerica (rabbit in the moon, etc). I don’t have any problems with people suggesting some trade influence and parallels but it is not to the level of evidence until there are fairly complex things that are in parallel or some things that are very unique. It is always the jump too far that people make with the BOM in my opinion. Many try to push the narrative that the BOM is the foundation of all civilization in Mesoamerica when realistically it was only of local influence to some groups. Lists of parallels are fine but they are just the first cut of comparing cultural elements. Further detailed research has to be done if possible.
Morgan Deane, 11-12-2021 at 12:24 pm
The review would have been much more useful if the reviewer cited the sources used for their arguments. For example, Michal Xu’s work always sounded interesting, as are the supposed refutations. But the rebuttal isn’t cited. The problems with various sources like Ixtlilxochitl and Bancroft sound authoritative, but we are only getting the reviewers position on those sources without the ability to fully assess it. Academics argue about everything, so I assume there are contrary positions on these sources as well, even if they are in the marginalized minority. There are no sources so we don’t have a chance to investigate both sides and assess the reviewer’s evaluation of the author’s use of sources.
Gardner has shown in numerous works that he knows a great deal and is a leader in the field, but a published review without the sources used for key assessments isn’t very useful.
Replies
Brant A. Gardner, 11-12-2021 at 12:58 pm
I agree that sources would be good. In the case of Ixtlilxochitl, much is from my personal examination, but corroborated with comments I have seen–but have no way to find. As for Michael Xu’s work, that was on the Aztlan message board years ago. I didn’t keep copies, and should have. I apologize for not having the ability to name the sources, but the information is correct.