. . .

I wish to argue in this article, however, that the attribution of motion to the earth, even with a concomitant recognition that the sun is stationary, should not be construed as evidence that the Nephites had adopted or understood a heliocentric model of the solar system. Put differently, Mormon’s lament about the inconstancy of man is not evidence of the Nephites arriving at a scientifically correct understanding of the earth’s motion before Copernicus. Rather, it is a case of the Nephites understanding the earth’s motion differently from the way it is understood scientifically today. In brief, Mormon’s attribution of motion to the earth, like Alma’s in Alma 30:44, signifies a different attitude toward motion than that given by modern science. As a consequence, it is hard for modern readers to draw from these passages their originally intended thrust and meaning. Moreover, by limiting the interpretive possibilities to the right-or-wrong of heliocentricism versus geocentrism, we erect a false dichotomy that puts the Book of Mormon at risk of looking like an anachronistic text.5 For as far as we know, no pre-Columbian American culture espoused a heliocentric worldview, and not until about 1700 (with the publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica) was the worldview question of Aristotle versus Copernicus scientifically decided in Western Europe.

A more comprehensive view of things helps to show that Mormon was not a proto-Copernican, and that “modern science” (I will qualify my use of this term shortly) is not always superior to past understanding. Instead, my submission is that Mormon is thinking along a much older wavelength, one that is more consistent with gospel principles than the one provided by modern science. Thus, I will suggest that Mormon’s statements are not anachronistic, but reflect a worldview that lost traction with the emergence of modern science.

My central concern in this article is why things move. I believe that this (the “why”) is what Mormon is most concerned about. In Helaman 12, Mormon’s concern is not about whether it is the sun or the earth that moves; or whether either body moves around the other, about which no mention is made. Instead, Mormon’s concern is whether entities of any sort move in response to God’s will. This view emerges from the context of the passage, and it is fully consistent with other scriptural descriptions of motion. But without a religious understanding of motion, readers have difficulty fully grasping Mormon’s overriding point.

Someone may ask: which understanding is the more correct understanding, the scientific or the religious? Well, each is fitted to serve a different purpose, and each makes different assumptions about the nature of reality. In what follows, I briefly examine the scientific understanding of motion as it developed alongside Copernican astronomy. I then look at Mormon’s explanation of the earth’s motion. My intent in proceeding in this fashion is to throw into relief the vast divide that separates the two views of motion. Neither view can claim to be absolutely authoritative, but Mormon’s outlook, I believe, is far more congenial to our spiritual sense that the universe is informed by God’s purpose and presence.

. . .