MS 1

Light from the Dust: A Review

The subtitle of Scott and Maurine Proctor’s new book, Light from the Dust, states what the authors envisioned the book to be: “A Photographic Exploration into the Ancient World of the Book of Mormon.” The photographs the Proctors have published are excellent, showing scenes of the area around Jerusalem, the coastal boarder area of Yemen and Oman, and parts of southern Mesoamerica. About one-fourth of the book contains photographs of the Jerusalem, Yemen, and Oman areas; the authors believe Lehi and his family wandered in these areas before they embarked on their voyage to the Promised Land. Three-fourths of the book contain photographs of Mesoamerica, the area the authors believe to be the Promised Land described in the Book of Mormon. The photography is splendid. The book’s pages are filled with beautiful landscapes, along with details of flowers, artifacts, and some specific archaeological sites. Unfortunately the photographs are much better than the text that accompanies them. The text and photographs often lack cohesion with each other, the text is riddled with archeological errors, and the entire book would have benefited from some careful fact checking.

Textual Problems

The text consists of a narration of and commentary on much of the Book of Mormon using many scriptures to make the narration and commentary flow together. There is usually no correlation between the text and the photographs on the same page. One reads the text and looks at the photographs and wonders why this photograph is near that particular text, or vice versa. Sadly, this is the rule, rather than the exeption to the book.

The same incohesion is true for the captions to the photographs. The first sentence in each caption usually identifies the photograph. Following the identification is a statement the authors have written or quoted that is neither related to the photograph nor to the closest text on the page. The following is a sampling of this problem:

Common food of the Bedouin since ancient times are these rock-hard Jamid, which are made from a mixture of herbs, meadow grasses, and camel’s or goat’s cheese. The mixture is placed in a skin bag, then kneaded and dried on the tent roof in the hot sun. Concerning a teaching of Joseph Smith, Erastus Snow said that Ishmael’s “sons married into Lehi's family.” Marrying cousins is a Near Eastern custom that survives to this day. It is poignant that Lehi and Sariah were anxious to bring Ishmael’s family into the wilderness. There[CS1]  own daughters would have been in that group. (Caption, 22)

It is easy to see that the second part of the caption has no relation to the first part, and no part of the caption relates to the text. Here are two other examples of incohesive captions:

Giant 150-foot breadnut tree of the canopy jungle in lowlands of northern Guatemala near the border of Mexico. It is noteworthy that at the gathering to hear Benjamin’s farewell address, every family had its own tent—a remnant feature of the Bedouin-desert world their ancestors came from nearly 480 years before. The transcendent message of Benjamin’s address is that “whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them.” (88)

Illuminated jungle ferns at a Guatemalan nature preserve. The constant and faithful prayers of Alma the elder for his son are telling of the efficacy of prayer. “He has prayed with much faith concerning thee,” the angel said to Alma the younger about his father. (103)

It is unfortunate that the beautiful photographs are not accompanied by cohesive captions and that these photographs do not usually relate to others nearby. The narrative also detracts from the breathtaking landscapes and details in the photographs because it does not relate to them.

Archeological Flaws

In addition to the confusing combitnation of text and photographs, errors in archeology are extensive in this book. F. Richard Hauck, a well-known Book of Mormon archeologist, accompanied the Proctors as their archeological advisor during three out of the six weeks they spent in Mesoamerica taking photographs. The photographs and text of the book reflect this influence; several of Hauck’s ideas regarding Book of Mormon geography can be found in the text. Hauck’s ideas have been published[i][CS2]  and reviewed; however, the reviews have not been favorable.[ii]

Regardless of the extent of Hauk’s involvement, the Proctors’ book contains several errors in archaeology. For example,[CS3]  the book features many photographs of Mixco Viejo, but most archaeologists believe the city was established during Late Classic times (AD 600–800),[iii] and its defensive works date to Early Postclassic times (AD 1000–1200)[iv]—long after the Book of Mormon period (ca. 2500 BC–AD 421). Later in the book is another jump in chronology—and geography. A caption first identifies a photograph of Lake Atiltan in Guatemala, then gives a brief description of the Aztec calendar, and finally relates them to Book of Mormon scriptures. This caption is describing two things far apart geographically and two things about[CS4]  a thousand years apart chronologically.

Several other problems exist in the text. For example, the Proctors identify the site of Nueve Cerros (Nine Hills) as a possible location of Zarahemla. This is an unsupported departure from most Book of Mormon scholars’ theories. In addition, the authors assume that the major industry of Zarahemla may have been salt production. This has no basis in the scriptures and is misleading in a book such as this, whose main purpose is simply to depict the lands of the Book of Momon in photographs. The authors also seem to be misleading when they claim that the mound complex at Izapa, near Tapachula, Mexico is an exact model of the Temple of Solomon but in grander proportions” for which there is no scriptural evidence.[CS5]  The above statements and others like them detract from the value of the photographs published in this book.

Fact Checking Oversights

In addition to the profuse archeological errors, there are several other errors in the text and photograph captions that should have been corrected by the editor or the authors. For example, a caption states that the Temple of the Cross at Palenque is a Postclassic temple in Tabasco, Mexico. However, Palenque is in Chiapas, as is correctly stated earlier in the book, and the well-known Temple of the Cross dates to Late Classic times. Another caption identifies a figure as a “stela of Mayan warrior-leader Pacal located at Palenque in the state of Chiapas in Southern Mexico” (89). The Proctors use the word stela, but the figure is not a stela[CS6] . It does not even represent Pacal, according to Merle Greene Robertson, an archeologist focusing in Mayan artifacts specifically from Palenque[CS7] .[v] Another caption states that “the Comitan River valley in southern Mexico is one of the ancient travel corridors to the Pacific” (138). The Comitan River valley is actually in southern Guatemala and empties into the Gulf of Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, not into the Pacific Ocean. A final example is found in a caption which reads in part, “Trees generally grow only on one side of these trenches today” (141). The authors then show a trench with trees growing on both sides. These and several other errors should have been corrected before publication.

Conclusion

In summary, the photographs of what many consider to be the Book of Mormon area in the New World and the Land Bountiful of the Old World are excellent and should be interesting to many who have not had the privilege of seeing these areas in person. However, the authors might have had a much better book, had they simply published the photographs with brief statements of identification. Instead, the captions are confusing and incohesive because a part of each does not relate to the photographs they are supposed to be describing. Additionally, the authors have difficulty connecting their photographs to the stated theme of the book. Finally, the text adds nothing new to Book of Mormon scholarship and usually does not relate to the photographs on the same page. Light from the Dust is a captivating photographic journey through the areas believed to be described in the Book of Mormon, but the text in the book is not of the same quality.

---

[i][i][i]1Hauck, F. Richard Hauck.,, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon. (Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1988), 1988.

[ii] John Clark, 1989. “A Key for Evaluation Nephite Geographies,” Rreview of Books on the Book of Mormon, 1(1989)(1989):20-–70; and William Hamblin, “A Stumble Forward?,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 1(1989):71–-77.

[iii] Stephen F. De Borhegyi,“Settlement Pattern of the Guatemalan Highlands,” vol. 2 in of The Hhandbook of Middle American Indians. (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1965), 70.

[iv] Stephen F. De Borhegyi, “Archaeological Synthesis of the Guatemanlan Highlands,” vol. 2 in of The hHandbook of Middle Middle American Indians. (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1965), 43.

5Merle Greene Robertson, “The Sculpture of Palenque,”vol.3ofThe Late Buildings of the Palace. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 67, 68,–69; illustrattions 333a, 333b, 326a, 326b, 332.

---

MS 1 "Closing Remarks"

This was an interesting project. I wish I had kept better track of how many hours I spent on this. It did take a lot of time and a lot of effort. And the learning experience was very valuable. Some things I learned:

• Structure is very good—I ended up adding a thesis and creating better topic sentences. This helped me to keep the focus and flow a lot better.
• So are headings—These were also very helpful in focusing each section. I wish you could use them for all writing.

• You HAVE to consider the audience. Who your audience is will determine the way you edit. When I compared my work to Mel's I noticed that he decided to keep some things in which I had taken out. This was because we were editing for different audiences.

• It's a lot easier to substantive edit if you don't have to worry about the author's voice. Usually, editors just get to make suggestions for the author and the author chooses what to do. With this assignment, I was allowed to completely disregard the author's voice, and it was much easier. I got the paper to say what I think it needed to say the way I wanted it to say it. It's much more difficult in real life.

Substantive Editing Practice (MS 1)

My professor told us that we should keep track of our editing: our editing rate, what we learned, what we want to learn. So, here is my first post.

I was assigned to work on a book review. The manuscript was one that came through Mel Thorne's hands. The manuscript is fairly close to what Mel worked with, but he added some problems for practice.

Our first assignment was to act as if we were in the acquisitions department; we were to read the manuscript and suggest changes that the author would need to make so that we could publish the manuscript (developmental editing). It was interesting to hear what suggestions each person made to the author. I recommended he include a more informative summary, fewer examples of errors, and more general examples of errors. My classmates suggested other things: a stronger thesis statement was one of the major ones, as well as tone.

The next assignment was to do a substantive edit on the manuscript. I haven't finished mine yet, but my focus has been on shortening the review and making the examples more general. I decided that the review didn't need a thesis because I've written and read book reviews before, and it doesn't seem like a thesis is always required. Additionally, because of the way this review is written, it doesn't seem like a thesis would fit anywhere. The reviewer dives right into describing the book and then listing its faults. I didn't see this as a flaw, but as I reviewed my classmates' edits and especially Mel's work, I am considering the benefit of more structure to this manuscript by means of a thesis and headers, in addition to stronger topic sentences.

One thing I have learned so far in the difference between my work and Mel's revisions is that audience is key. Mel edited the manuscript for a very scholarly audience, who would know about the details mentioned in the review. When I edited, however, I was working the manuscript to fit a more general audience. The audience you have in mind will strongly affect the way you edit—at least it should.