|
The matter of Lehi’s landing site has been the
subject of much debate, for obviously, pin-pointing the actual site where Lehi’s
colony landed would tend to isolate the regions he and his family came to
occupy. Knowing how important such a discovery would be, several sites have been
proposed over the years, but none more controversial than one made by Frederick
G. Williams who claimed Lehi landed in Chile. Unfortunately that theory was
based on very shaky grounds, and thus the cause of much contention. The original
theory was based on a lone statement by Williams, who, sometime between 1836 and
1845, wrote down a comment about Lehi’s party landing at 30 degrees south
latitude in Chile during his association with the Prophet. It went as follows:
The course that Lehi traveled from the city of
Jerusalem to the place where he and his family took ship, they traveled nearly a
south, south east direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of North
Latitude, then nearly east to the Sea of Arabia then sailed in a south east
direction and landed on the continent of South America in Chili (sic.) thirty
degrees south Latitude.[1]
We might be puzzled somewhat by the
details contained in this statement which give it a certain air of
believability, but we must remember that most of these directions were already
given in the scriptures. For example, we learn of the direction Lehi and his
family journeyed once they left Jerusalem in 1 Nephi 16:13, where we read they
traveled in a south, southeast direction. (Continuing in that direction would
have taken them to 19 degrees north latitude, another natural assumption.)
And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of
four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again;
and we did call the name of the place Shazer. (1 Nephi 16:13.)
The next chapter specifies
that they changed their course and “did travel eastward from that time
forth”—surely meaning to the Sea of Arabia, not clear to the promised land, for
they had eight years of wandering ahead of them, plus a lengthy stop at
Bountiful. Moreover, a ship had to be built and prepared for the journey before
any designation would surely have been made about the route they were to take
once they set sail.
And it came to pass that we did again take our journey
in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And
we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women
did bear children in the wilderness. (1 Nephi 17:1.)
And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord came unto my father, that we
should arise and go down into the ship.
And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had
prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in
abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord had commanded us, we
did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever
thing we had brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did
all go down into the ship, with our wives and our children. (1 Nephi 18:5-6.)
And it came to pass after we had all gone down into the
ship, and had taken with us our provisions and things which had been commanded
us, we did put forth into the sea and were driven forth before the wind towards
the promised land. (1 Nephi 18:8.)
And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the
space of many days we did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon
the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land. (1
Nephi 18:21-23.)
A careful study of these scriptures makes it clear that
at no time were they given a course to follow once they set out upon the waters.
Obviously several options would have been available to them, but thankfully, the
Liahona led them along the most sure course to their destination.
By exploring the Williams' suggested course across the
Pacific to Chile, it must be noted that most of the directions given in his
statement were taken directly from the scriptures. Even his suggested course
after setting sail can be easily reconciled, for anyone heading east across the
Pacific from the Arabian Peninsula would, of necessity, have had to travel in a
southeast direction if they wanted to skirt India. Thus, anyone with a map in
front of them could have made that calculation.
Yet if the truth be known, from their resting place in
the Arabian Peninsula, and after setting sail into the Indian Ocean, the
Nephites likely sailed along already well established trade routes of various
maritime peoples who traded between the west coast of Europe, India, and even
China long before Columbus entered the picture. Trade winds and currents would
have taken them southwestward to East Africa, around the Cape of Good Hope to
the Cape Verde Islands, and through the Caribbean to North America. The Nephites
are likely to have entered the continent via the Mississippi River and from
there along the Ohio and Allegheny rivers directly to southwest New York, the
lands further northward having been desecrated by the bones of the fallen
Jaredite nation.
As far as the Landing site proposed by Williams, in a
paper entitled Did Lehi Land in Chile?, Frederick G. Williams, a great grandson
of the former Williams, tried to piece together his great grandfather’s
reasoning on the matter. After much study, he speculated that since Chile is
thirty degrees south latitude and Jerusalem is at approximately thirty degrees
north latitude, both sites would have had a similar climate and may be why that
destination was chosen. Therefore, the proposed Chilean landing site may have
simply come about when those who were studying out the directions given in 1
Nephi attempted to follow the journey from the southern tip of the Arabian
Peninsula eastward to a plausible landing site in the new world. Those in
discussion on the matter evidently settled on Chile. Thus, a destination was
produced which caught hold and lasted for generations.
Now, some might reasonably question why the Williams
statement was given such importance when numerous theories were being introduced
at the time. The answer to that question becomes more apparent when we realize
that Williams was the Prophet’s scribe during the years between 1833 and 1837.
Moreover, the proposed landing site of Lehi was found on the same sheet of paper
with a known revelation regarding John the Beloved, although the revelation
about John was given the Prophet in 1829, three full years before Williams even
joined the church. Unfortunately, those coming across the document must have
thought the revelation pertinent to John the Beloved was the original and thus
considered the statement regarding Lehi’s landing site a revelation as well.
But, had it been a real revelation, it would have been declared so, and
documented for posterity, and the subject of Lehi’s landing a closed issue.
In reality, the Williams statement was written so
casually that it looks to be nothing more than just one of several topics being
discussed during his association with the Prophet—perhaps during a session of
The School of the Prophets. It was found on a sheet of paper that had been
separated into four sections by a line drawing. The top section contained a copy
of the revelation pertinent to John, the second had “Questions in English and
Answers in Hebrew,” the third had writings titled “Characters on the Book of
Mormon,” with the statement about Lehi’s landing site found in the fourth
section at the bottom of the page, with no reference to authorship or headers of
any kind. Under the circumstances, it is easy to see how no basis for it being
considered a revelation to Joseph could ever be justified. Even so, because the
statement was found in the handwriting of the Prophet’s scribe, some of the
early Saints continued to foster the notion that it was a revelation and
perpetuated the theory for the next half century.
Unfortunately, the Williams statement ultimately found
its way into print which made it look even more official. Franklin D. Richards
and James A. Little were the first to publish the Williams' statement in A
Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel in 1882. The work was titled Lehi’s
Travels - A Revelation to Joseph the Seer.
In direct response to the continuing controversy over
the matter, B. H. Roberts, author of the Comprehensive History of the Church,
spoke out against the Richards and Little’s passage attributing the Lehi’s
landing statement to be a revelation to Joseph, and made the following comment
in the Deseret News in 1909.
The only reason so far discovered for regarding the
{Lehi’s Travels statement} as a revelation is that it is found written on a
loose sheet of paper in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, for some years
second Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church in the Kirtland period of
its history; and follows the body of the revelation contained in Doctrine and
Covenants, section vii, relating to John the beloved disciple, remaining on the
earth until the glorious coming of Jesus to reign with his Saints. The
handwriting is certified to be that of Frederick G. Williams, by his son, Ezra
G. Williams, of Ogden, and endorsed on the back of the sheet of paper containing
the . . . passage and the revelation pertaining to John. . . But there is no
heading to the passage. . . about Lehi’s travels and the “Revelation of Joseph
the Seer, “ are added by the publishers, justified as they supposed. . . But the
one relating to Lehi’s travels was never published in the life-time of the
Prophet, and was published nowhere else until published in the Richards-Little
Compendium. . . Now, if no more evidence can be found to establish this passage
in Richards and Little’s Compendium as a ‘Revelation to Joseph, the Seer,’ than
the fact that it is found in the hand writing of Frederick G. Williams, and on
the same sheet of paper with the body of the revelation about John, the evidence
of its being a ‘revelation to Joseph, the Seer,’ rests on a very unsatisfactory
basis.[2]
Regardless of such declarations, nothing seemed to
deter the saints. Thus, the Church decided it was time to take a stand. In 1918,
Frederick J. Pack, Chairman of the Gospel Doctrine Committee of the Church, made
an official statement in The Instructor in response to the continuing belief
that Lehi landed in Chile. In reference to the statement by Williams found in
the Richards and Little’s Compendium, he said: “ . . . . Its authenticity,
however, is subject to grave doubt.” To further clarify the Church’s stand on
the matter, he continued:
The Church has issued no information concerning the
route followed by Lehi . . . until that is done, teachers and Gospel Doctrine
departments should refrain from expressing definite opinions.[3]
As it turns out, few either read or heard the
directive, although there was less discussion about it in Gospel Doctrine
classes. Thus, the theory continued to grow, especially since marvelous
discoveries of prehistoric monuments were coming to light in Central America
around this time, thereby giving Book of Mormon theorists what seemed a
never-ending supply of fresh material to draw upon in their continuing quest for
a Central or South America setting for the lost lands of the Book of Mormon.
Notes:
1- Frederick G. Williams III, Did Lehi
Land in Chile? p.1. LDS Archives, MSD.
2- B. H. Roberts, New Witness for God.
3- Frederick J. Pack and George D. Pyper, The Instructor 73, no. 4, 1938,
p. 160.
Copyright © 1998 by Phyllis Carol Olive
Copyright
© 2007 by Phyllis Carol Olive
Back to Home Page |