The following is a reprint of the pamphlet 'Archaeology and the Book of Mormon' by Hal Ho
========================================================================
The following is a reprint of the pamphlet "Archaeology and the Book of
Mormon" by Hal Hougey (revised Ed. 6/83-6M). It gives a little insight
into how far the Mormon church leaders are willing to go to "prove" that
the Book of Mormon is an archaeologically "sound" book. For further
information, and amplification on the subject, I heartily suggest the
book "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" by Jerald and Sandra Tanner
(available through Utah Lighthouse Ministries, P.O BOX 1884, Salt Lake
City, Utah. 84110. List price is $3.00.)
Note: All items in single quotes (') denote italicized literary
references in the original pamphlet.
========================================================================
HAS AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY VERIFIED THE BOOK OF MORMON?
-----------------------------------------------------
Latter-Day Saints believe the 'Book of Mormon' is the record of at least
some of the ancient inhabitants of the New World. They have often
claimed that the study of the artifacts and ruins left by these early
inhabitants of America has proven the historicity of the 'Book of
Mormon'. Some have even claimed that reputable archaeologists have used
the 'Book of Mormon' as a guide book in locating the ruins of ancient
cities in Central Amerca!
We shall here consider these claims. For the sake of brevity, and to
avoid any possibility of quibbling, we shall limit ourselves to
statements made by Mormon scholars and apologists.
I. Can an Archaeological Test Be Applied to the 'Book of Mormon'?
The numerous books and articles by Latter-day Saints over the years have
shown that Mormons believe that the fruits of archaeological research
may be properly applied to verify the 'Book of Mormon'. Dr. Ross T.
Christensen, a Mormon anthropologist, agrees with this in the following
quotations from the "Newsletter" of the University Archaeological
Society which has it's headquarters at Brigham Young University in
Provo, Utah:
...the Book of Mormon is in such a key position in relation
to the Latter-day Saint religion as a whole that the entire
structure of the latter must stand or fall with the
verification or refutation of the former; and finally, that
the Book of Mormon is of such a nature that its validity can
be submitted to a thorough and objective scientific test.
('U.A.S Newsletter', No. 64, January 30, 1960, pp. 5-6)
If the Book's history is fallacious, its doctrine cannot
be genuine. On the other hand, if the historical content
proves to be correct, by inference, it is impossible that the
doctrine could be incorrect. (Ibid., p. 4)
It is entirely possible that we shall some day have a
thorough knowledge of the archaeological history of the entire
New World, and if our search nowhere turns up materials that
can be fitted into the Book of Mormon picture of extensive
civilizations of Near Eastern origin, then that record stands
disproved. In a word, I am fully confident that the nature of
the Book is such that a definitive archaeological test can be
applied to it. (Ibid., p. 3)
II. The Status of Archaeology among Latter-day Saints
Latter-day Saints have only recently entered seriously into the field of
anthropology, though they have "long evidenced an avid, though amateur,
interest in the subject" since the earliest days of the Mormon church.
It was not until 1938 that the first Latter-day Saint earned a doctorate
in anthropology (M. Wells Jakeman, at the University of California). In
1946 a Department of Archaeology was established at Brigham Young
University. This department "was particularly dedicated to researches
bearing on the Scriptures upon which Latter-day Saints base their faith"
(Ibid., pp. 1, 2).
Consequently, nearly all of the literature produced by Mormon writers in
the field of archaeology has been on an amateur level, and therefore is
marked by its lack of objectivity and scholarship, since the writers
lacked the professional training essential to producing acceptable work.
As Christensen says,
Latter-day saints who have had any formal training in
archaeology are exceedingly few. In other words, the interest
which they have had in this field has been up to the present
largely on an amateur rather than professional level. I am
convinced that this sort of "archaeology" in the Church will
be no more effective in solving the problems which face us
than folk medicine would be in protecting the health of the
people. (Ibid.)
While there are today only a few Latter-day Saints with a doctor's
degree in anthropology, these few have served to curtail the extravagant
claims which have been made by Mormon missionaries and by the lavish
picture books published by Mormons in which ancient ruins in Mexico and
Central America are presented as proof of the 'Book of Mormon'. While
this is a welcome change, think of all the people who have been won to
Mormonism by these false claims!
III. Mormon Anthropologists Contradict Mormon Missionaries and Writers
When Mormon missionaries and writers make extravagant claims about
American archaeology proving the 'Book of Mormon', we need only to refer
them to the following statements by their own anthropologists:
The statement that the Book of Mormon has already been
proved by archaeology is misleading. The truth of the matter
is that we are only now beginning to see even the outlines of
the archaeological time-periods which could compare with those
of the Book of Mormon. How, then, can the matter have been
settled once and for all? That such an idea could exist
indicates the ignorance of many of our people with regard to
what is going on in the historical and anthropological
sciences. (Christensen in 'U.A.S. Newsletter', No. 64,
January 30, 1960, p. 3)
Many times, Mormon missionaries have told their
investigators that such late-period ruins as Monte Alban
(periods III-V), Yagul, and Mitla were built by Nephites and
that the archaeologists would confirm this. Both claims are
untrue. However, the earliest periods of the area, Monte
Alban I and II although as yet little known, are of Preclassic
(i.e. Book of Mormon period) date. One may think of these
earlier peoples as Jaredites or Nephites, but if so it must be
on the basis of faith, not archaeology, for so far there is no
explicit evidence that Book of Mormon peoples occupied this
area [Oaxaca, in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec area of Mexico].
(Joseph E. vincent in 'U.A.S Newsletter', No. 66, May 7, 1960,
p. 2)
Regarding LDS writers who claim that archaeology has proved the 'Book of
Mormon', John L Sorenson, who was assistant professor of anthropology
and sociology at Brigham Young University, says,
Various individuals unconnected with these institutionalized
activities have also wrestled with the archaeological problem. Few
of the writings they have produced are of genuine consequence in
archaeological terms. Some are clearly on the oddball fringe;
others have credible qualifications. Two of the most prolific are
Professor Hugh Nibley and Milton R. Hunter; however, they are not
qualified to handle the archaeological materials their works often
involve.
...As long as Mormons generally are willing to be fooled by
(and pay for) the uninformed, uncritical drivel about
archaeology and the scriptures which predominates, the few
L.D.S. experts are reluctant even to be identified with the
topic. ('Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought', Spring 1966,
pp. 145, 146)
Dee Green, who received the MA degree in archaeology at BYU in 1961, was
a general officer of the University Archaeological Society, editor of
the 'UAS Newsletter' from 1958-1961, conducted excavations in southern
Mexico, and is assistant professor of anthropology at Weber State
College, comments:
Those volumes which most flagrantly ignore time and space
and most radically distort, misinterpret, or ignore portions
of the archaeological evidence are the popular Farnsworth
volumes. Also inadequate, from a professional archaeologist's
point of view, are the well intentioned volumes by Milton R.
Hunter and a nuimber of smaller pamphlets and works by various
authors...
New World-Old World comparisons have been less popular
but equally fraught with with problems. The best known
examples are the two volumes by [Hugh] Nibley which suffer
from an overdose of 'Old-Worlditis.'...He does not know New
World culture history well, and his writing ignores the
considerable indigenous elements in favor of exclusively Old
World patterns. ('Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought',
Summer 1969. p. 74)
Dr. John L. Sorenson makes an even broader statement when he says:
I do not believe that any neutral-but-interested jury
would be convinced today by any evidence that is at hand that
Zarahemla has been found, that any Egyptian writing has been
found in the New World, that any Semitic writing has been
found in the New World, or any other of these specific kinds
of proof. ('Book of Mormon Institute', Dec. 5, 1959, pp.
26-27)
In an address to the Archaeological Society at BYU, Fletcher B. Hammond
stated:
...there does not yet appear any artifact that we Latter-day
Saints can present to the world - and prove by any scientific
rule - that such artifact is conclusive proof of any part of
the Book of Mormon. ('Geography of the Book of Mormon',
presented March 25, 1964, p. 5)
Christensen chides his bretheren with the following comment:
As for the notion that the Book of Mormon has already
been proved by archaeology, I must say with Shakespeare, "Lay
not that flattering unction to your soul!" (Hamlet III:4).
('U.A.S. Newsletter', No. 64, January 30, 1960, p. 3)
What about the Mormon claim that non-Mormons have found the 'Book of
Mormon' helpful as a guide in locating ruins of cities in Central
America? M. Wells Jakeman, Mormon anthropologist, answers this
question:
It must be confessed that some members of the "Mormon" or
Latter-day Saint Church are prone, in their enthusiasm for the
Book of Mormon, to make claims for it that cannot be
supported. So far as is known to the writer, no non-Mormon
archaeologist at the present time is using the Book of Mormon
as a guide in archaeological research. Nor does he know of
any non-Mormon archaeologist who holds that the American
Indians are descendants of the Jews, or that Christianity was
known in America in the first century of our era. This in
itself, of course, does not disprove the Book of Mormon; for
not enough is yet known of the actual period of that record in
ancient America, or of the origin of the American Indians, for
a final judgment at this time, scientifically speaking.
(Ibid., No. 57, March 25, 1959, p. 4)
With the exception of Latter-day Saint archaeologists,
members of the archaeological profession do not, and never
have, espoused the Book of Mormon in any sense of which I am
aware. Non-Mormon archaeologists do not allow the Book of
Mormon any place whatever in their reconstruction of the early
history of the New World. (Christensen in 'U.A.S.
Newsletter', No. 64, January 30, 1960, p. 3)
IV. The Increasing Frustration of Mormon Scholars
As the techniques of archaeological research become more sophisticated
and the body of archaeological knowledge increases, the absence of
specific evidence for the 'Book of Mormon' becomes more striking, and
the chance for finding that evidence decreases. This fact seems to be
causing an increasing sense of frustration among Mormon scholars, as the
following quotations indicate.
Clark S. Knowlton, speaking on the "Problems In Book of Mormon
Archaeology," said:
If archaeologists do uncover material remains of
civilizations in the Americas that resemble in cultural
characteristics those of the Middle east that existed when the
Book of Mormon peoples migrated to the Americas, the whole
theological position of Mormonism will be strengthened. On
the other hand, if no such relationships are found, our
critics will then raise grave questions about the authenticity
of the Book of Mormon. ('Thirtieth Annual Symposium on the
Archaeology of the Scriptures', 1961, p. 52)
Ross T. Christensen, speaking on the lack of evidence indicating a
connection between the Old World and 'Book of Mormon' cultures said:
...the spirit of caution is urged, for the reason that there
are a number of points where correspondence should have been
found but to this date have not been. There seems to be no
fully adequate explanation for the lack of such traits in the
New World, required by the Book of Mormon, as Old World
plants, smelted iron, and Near Eastern forms of writing.
('Progress in Archaeology', BYU, 1963, p. 147)
Francis W. Kirkham, a Mormon apologist, seemed to sense this frustration
when he addressed the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of
the Scriptures at BYU on May 16, 1964, when he said:
Now, Brother Jakeman...I want to say to you, be patient.
(I'll say the same thing to you, Dr. Christensen and the rest
of you in this field.) Be patient; the Book of Mormon is
true. (p. 7)
Dr. Hugh Nibley of BYU, a prolific Mormon writer and apologist, wrote:
Everything written so far by anthropologists or
archaeologists - even real archaeologists - about the Book of
Mormon must be discounted, for the same reason that we must
discount studies of the lost Atlantis; not because it did not
exist, but because it has not yet been found. ('Since
Cumorah', Salt Lake City, 1967, p. 244)
Dee Green wrote the following in 1969:
Having spent a considerable portion of the past ten years
functioning as a scientist dealing with New World archaeology,
I find that nothing in so-called Book of Mormon archaeology
materially affects my religious commitment one way or the
other, and I do not see that the archaeological myths so
common in our proselytizing program enhance the process of
true conversion.
The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon
archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological
half-truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American
archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists
regardless of their education, and Department of Archaeology
at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon
archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology
really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology
then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do
not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book
of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can
study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are
not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known
with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can
be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were
and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor
any location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then
that a concentration on geography should be the first order of
business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such
an approach has left us emptyhanded. ('Dialogue: A Journal of
Mormon Thought', Summer 1969, pp. 74, 76, 77, 78)
The frustration and embarrassment of Mormon scholars can be understood
when it is realized that after all the years of work by both Mormon and
other archaeologists:
1. No 'Book of Mormon' cities have been located.
2. No 'Book of Mormon' names have been found in New World
inscriptions.
3. No genuine inscriptions have been found in Hebrew.
4. No genuine inscriptions have been found in Egyptian or anything
similar to Egyptian, which could correspond to Joseph Smith's
"Reformed Egyptian."
5. No ancient copies of 'Book of Mormon' scriptures have been
found.
6. No ancient inscriptions of any kind which indicate that the
ancient inhabitants had Hebrew or Christian beliefs - all are
pagan.
7. No mention of 'Book of Mormon' persons, nations, or places have
been found.
8. No artifact of any kind which demonstrates the 'Book of Mormon'
is true has been found.
9. Rather than finding supportive evidence, Mormon scholars have
been forced to retreat from traditional interpretations of 'Book
of Mormon' statements (For an example of this, see the latter
portion of this pamphlet on the location of Cumorah).
Lacking any positive evidence for the 'Book of Mormon', Mormon scholars
have had to spend a great deal of time in the sterile area of dealing
with objections to 'Book of Mormon' claims, generally without any marked
degree of success.
V. The Book of Abraham Disaster
In 1842 Joseph Smith published the Book of Abraham, which was allegedly
a translation of some papyri found with an Egyptian mummy brought to the
United States from Egypt a few years earler. While Champollion was at
that time struggling to decipher the Egyptian heiroglyphics, no one
could yet read them, so Joseph was safe in claiming to translate the
papyri. He stated that the papyri were in the handwriting of Abraham
himself. Latter-day Saints have accepted these supposed translations
and they have been included in the 'Pearl of Great Price', a collection
of Mormon scriptures in addition to the 'Book of Mormon'. In the
confusion following Joseph Smith's death in 1844, the papyri appeared to
have been lost.
However, they eventually became the possession of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art in New York City, where they lay forgotten in their files
for many years. On November 27, 1967, newspapers announced that the
Museum was turning them over to the Mormon church. This announcement
was the cause of rejoicing among Mormons, but it soon turned into a
nightmare. For now the papyri were available for the world to examine,
and it was soon found by Mormon scholars that the papyri contained
nothing about Abraham, but were a common type of Egfyptian funerary
papyrus usually found with mummies. Translation of these papyri has
compelled a number of informed Mormons to reject the Book of Abraham as
scripture, and some even doubt Joseph Smith was the prophet he claimed
to be.
Some prominent Latter-day Saints, such as Dee Jay Nelson, have left the
Mormon church as a result of these disclosures. Mr. Nelson is an
Egyptologist and was asked by the LDS church to translate the Book of
Abraham materials. His translation revealed the true nature of the
documents, and Mr. Nelson made his findings public. The church refused
to acknowledge his findings, and in December 1975, Mr. Nelson officially
resigned from the church, stating that he did not want membership in an
organization which refused to reveal the truth. Other well known
persons in the LDS church have intellectually left the church, although
they have officially maintained membership because of family pressures.
We conclude, therefore, that the 'Book of Mormon' remains completely
unverified by archaeology. The claims Mormon missionaries have made are
fallacious and misleading. Many honest and sincere people who have no
background or training in the field of archaeology have been converted
to Mormonism at least in part because of their false conviction that
American archaeology has verified the 'Book of Mormon' record. May
their eyes be opened to the wonderful light of truth as it is in God's
Word, the Bible!
CUMORAH WHERE?
--------------
We shall now show that Americam archaeology has not only failed to
verify the 'Book of Mormon', but that it has caused a division among
Latter-day Saints concerning the interpretation of the geoographical
references in the 'Book of Mormon', and is forcing Latter-day saints to
make a heart-searching decision which has eternal consequences.
I. The Interest in Archaeology in Joseph Smith's Day
In the 1820's there was a tremendous interest on the part of Americans
in the origin and history of the New World. Settlers were familiar with
the mounds and relics left by a race that had preceded them. Numerous
books had been written about the possible origin and history of these
prehistoric people, as well as about the great native civilizations of
Mexico and Peru.
The most widely believed theory of the origin of the Indians during
Joseph Smith's boyhood was that they were descendents of the Hebrews,
and many subscribed to this theory. Of the many books published which
advocated this idea was one entitled 'View of the Hebrews', written by
Ethan Smith and published at Poultney, Vermont in 1823. So popular was
this book that a second edition was brought out in 1825. It is quite
possible, if not probable, that Oliver Cowdery carried a copy of this
book with him when he left his boyhood home in Poultney and moved into
western New York, where he soon came into contact with the Smith family.
So striking are the similarities of the 'Book of Mormon' to 'View of the
Hebrews' that some scholars believe that Ethan Smith's book was the
primary inspiration for Joseph Smith's book.
At any rate, the 'Book of Mormon' capitalized on the current interest
and popular theories about the Indians by purporting to be a history of
the ancient inhabitants of America. Seeing in the 'Book of Mormon' an
appealing answer to their curiosity, many people quickly accepted the
book as a true record.
II. Geography of the 'Book of Mormon'
Joseph Smith was familiar with the advanced state of the native
civilizations in Central and South America as well as the relics of the
early inhabitants of western New York, because of the many books
available on these topics. Consequently, he used both continents for
the scene of action in the 'Book of Mormon'.
The 'Book of Mormon' tells of the voyage of the Jaredites from the Tower
of Babel to America, and later of the voyage of Lehi and his sons from
Jerusalem. While the geographical references in the book are vague, it
speaks of "the land northward" and "the land southward," connected by a
"narrow neck of land." The book also speaks of a "land of many waters,"
and "the waters of Ripliancum," and a hill called "Ramah" by the
Jaredites and "Cumorah" by the Nephite descendants of Lehi. The classic
Mormon interpretation is that these phrases refer to North and South
America, and the Isthmus of Panama (or Darien, as it used to be called).
Earlier editions of the 'Book of Mormon' contained footnotes explaining
that the "land of many waters" was the Great Lake region, including
western New York. "Cumorah" (or "Ramah") was identified as the hill
near Palmyra, New York, where Joseph claimed to have found the plates
from which the 'Book of Mormon' was translated. Current editions of the
'Book of Mormon' no longer carry these geographical explanations (E.
Cecil McGavin and Willard Bean, 'Geography of the Book of Mormon', pp.
3-4, 48-49).
III. Joseph Smith's Explanation of These References
That Joseph Smith intended the geographical references of the 'Book of
Mormon' to be understood as explained above is obvious from the
following quotations.
Joseph Smith wrote the following, which appeared in 'Times and Seasons',
September 15, 1842:
...we read in the Book of Mormon that Jared and his brother
came on this continent from the confusion and scattering at
the Tower, and lived here more than a thousand years, and
covered the whole continent from sea to sea, with towns and
cities; and that Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great
Southern Ocean, and crossed over to this land, and landed a
little south of the Isthmus of Darien, and improved the
country according to the word of the Lord... (III:921-922.
Quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, 'Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith', 267)
A "Revelation to Joseph the Seer" states:
The course that Lehi and his company traveled from
Jerusalem to the Place of their destination: They traveled
nearly a south, southeast direction until they came to the
nineteenth degree of north latitude; then, nearly east to the
Sea of Arabia, then sailed in a southeast direction, and
landed on the continent of South America, in Chili [sic],
thirty degrees south latitude. (Franklin D. Richards and
James A. Little, 'A Compendium of the Doctrines of the
Gospel', 289. B. H. Roberts doubts this is a revelation, and
gives his reasons in 'New Witnesses for God', III:501-502.
Yet, he admits that this description was "in the handwriting
of Frederick G. Williams, Counselor to the Prophet, and on the
same page with the body of an undoubted revelation.")
Joseph Smith gives the following account of the discovery of a skeleton
in a mound in Illinois in June, 1834:
During our travels we visited several of the mounds which
had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this country
- Nephites, Lamanites, etc., and this morning I went up on a
high mound, near the river, accompanied by the bretheren...The
bretheren procured a shovel and a hoe, and removing the earth
to a depth of about one foot, discovered the skeleton of a
man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a
Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death. Elder
Burr Riggs retained the arrow. The contemplation of the
scenery around us produced peculiar sensations on our bosoms;
and subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my
understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that
the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite,
a large thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph.
He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet
Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern
sea to the Rocky mountains...He was killed in battle by the
arrow found among his ribs, during the last struggle of the
Lamanites and Nephites. (B. H. Roberts, Editor, 'Documentary
History of the Church', II:79-80)
Both Oliver Cowdery and Apostle Orson Pratt wrote that Cumorah in the
'Book of Mormon' was the same hill in which Joseph Smith found the
plates ('Messenger and Advocate', July 1835; 'Millenial Star',
XXVIII:417). Apostle Parley P. Pratt wrote:
This Book, which contained those things, was hid in the
earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him, Cumorah, which hill
is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra,
in Ontario county. ('Autobiography', 55-56)
Joseph Smith never contradicted these statements.
IV. The New Mormon Theory
Today, Latter-day Saints are divided over this matter of 'Book of
Mormon' geography. Among those adhering to the classic interpretation
are McGavin and Bean, and Dewey Farnsworth in his 'Book of Mormon
Evidences in Ancient America'.
The 'new' view, called the "Tehuantepec" theory, is favored by Mormon
anthropologists at Brigham Young University, and is finding some favor
in the church leadership. As informed Latter-day Saints have become
aware that the classic view is untenable in the light of modern
archaeological knowledge, they have had to search for a new explanation
of 'Book of Mormon' geography. Actually, B. H. Roberts had some
misgivings about the classic view as early as 1909 ('New Witnesses for
God', III:502-503), and suggested that the events of the 'Book of
Mormon' might be restricted to Meso-america, with the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec in southern Mexico as the "narrow neck of land." This
explanation makes it less difficult to harmonize the descriptions of the
terrain and the Jaredite and Nephite civilizations in the 'Book of
Mormon' with the archaeological data, and has therefore been accepted by
the Mormon anthropologists at BYU in recent years.
Dr. Christensen of Brigham Young University presents compelling reasons
for accepting the "Tehuantepec" theory:
Perhaps some readers of the Nephite scripture will
automatically assume that of course Book of Mormon peoples
reached South America, since the sacred history presented in
the record was actually enacted in large part on that
continent. But is this necessarily true? Dr. Jakeman and
others have developed the view that virtually the entire story
of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica...Let me
recapitulate my reasons for preferring the "Tehuantepec"
theory of Book of Mormon geography to the "Panama" theory. If
the Isthmus of Panama is the "narrow neck of land," then
Colombia in northwestern South America must be the central
Nephite region, or the Zarahemla-Bountiful land of the Book of
Mormon, and must contain evidences of advanced civilization.
But on the other hand if the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in
southern Mexico is the "narrow neck of land," then northern
Guatemela, Tabasco, and Chiapas - not Colombia - must contain
the Bountiful-Zarahemla land and present these evidences.
The types of ancient culture revealed by archaeology in
Guatemala, Tabasco, and Chiapas on the one hand and in
Colombia on the other, definitely favor the Tehuantepec
theory. The prehistoric cultures of Colombia do not fit into
the picture required by the Book of Mormon: they are not of
the right kind; they are not the sort of thing that one would
expect from reading the Book. For one thing, they are highly
provincialized cultures of limited distribution.
Much greater civilizational heights were achieved in
Guatemala, Tabasco, and Chiapas. In all of Colombia there
hardly exists such a thing as a standing ruin, but in Chiapas
and surrounding areas there exist many great cities of stone
and other materials...
The early civilizations in Mesoamerica date back to the
centuries before the time of Christ, while one of them in the
Valley of Mexico and nearby goes back as far as 1500 or 2000
BC. In Colombia, on the contrary, the oldest known
civilizations date back to only three or four centuries before
the coming of the Spaniards, with the possible exception of
San Augustin.
The terrain of Tehuantepec fits the requirements of the
"narrow neck of land" much more satisfactorily than does that
of Panama. It is relatively flat...The mountains on either
side give way abruptly, leaving a nearly level isthmus, which
could easily have been traversed, fortified, and defended.
The Isthmus of Panama, however, presents a very difficult
terrain: dense jungle superimposed upon a rugged mountain
range extending the entire length of the republic.
(Christensen in 'U.A.S. Newsletter', No. 67, July 7, 1960, pp.
2-3)
V. Difficulties of the "Tehuantepec" Theory
There are some obvious difficulties of the "Tehuantepec" theory.
Christensen admits one of these when he says, "There is, to be sure, one
apparent disadvantage in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: it seems to be too
wide to be the 'narrow neck of land'" (Ibid., p. 3). Certainly if the
'Book of Mormon' lands are limited to southern Mexico and Guatemela, the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec is not nearly narrow enough to be called a
"narrow neck of land," in relation to the size of the adjoining
territories. Panama, however, fits this description beautifully. In
the absence of any satisfactory explanation, Christensen theorizes that
alluvial deposits have widened the isthmus during the past 1500 years!
Another difficulty is the Hill Cumorah. According to the 'Book of
Mormon', the Nephite records were buried in this hill, and Joseph Smith
tels us that an angel directed him to these plates, near Palmyra, New
York. Now, if the 'Book of Mormon' history is confined to Mesoamerica,
how could the plates have been found by Joseph in New York?
Vincent, in his notes accompanying his map of 'Book of Mormon' lands,
attempts to answer this question:
One last word - the Hill Cumorah. Some identify it with
the hill in New York (later named Cumorah) in which the Plates
were found, whereas the majority (including Mormon
archaeologists and those who study the internal evidence of
the Book itself) place it in Mesoamerica, roughly as it is
shown in this map. The latter group feel that those who
insist that it is located in New York lack the faith in a God
who, if he can reveal and cause the translations of the Plates
could certainly arrange for their transporatation at the
proper time from the Hill Cumorah in Mexico to New York.
This answer is certainly not satisfactory, since it does not explain why
the angel who showed Joseph Smith the plates went to the trouble of re-
burying them in New York, nor why that angel never explained that the
plates had been transported from Mexico, thereby leading generations of
Latter-day Saints into an erroneous and embarrassing interpretation.
A third, and insurmountable, difficulty involved in acceptance of the
"Tehuantepec" theory is that it denies the inspiration of Joseph Smith,
since he claimed revelations from God to the effect that the Nephites
and Lamanites occpied much of the North American continent, and fought
their last battles in an area which included the present state of
Illinois!
Joseph Fielding Smith, church historian, and later president and prophet
of the church, rejected the "Tehuantepec" theory with these words:
Within recent years there has arisen among certain
students of the Book of Mormon a theory to the effect that
within the period covered by the Book of Mormon, the Nephites
and Lamanites were confined almost within the borders of the
territory comprising Central America and the southern portion
of Mexico; the Isthmus of Tehuantepec probably being the
"narrow neck" of land spoken of in the Book of Mormon rather
than the Isthmus of Panama...This modernistic theory of
necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of
Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the
restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the
teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100
years...In the light of revelation it is absurd for anyone to
maintain that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess this
northern land...In the face of this evidence coming from the
Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, we
cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the
territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah is in
Central America. ('The Deseret News', Church Section, Feb.
27, 1954, pp. 2-3).
VI. The Latter-day Saints' Dilemma
Latter-day Saints are thus caught on two horns of a dilemma:
They can continue to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and
reject modern archaeological knowledge; or
They can accept the archaeological data, and reject Joseph Smith as a
prophet of God.
CONSISTENCY demands that they choose one of these alternatives; HONESTY
demands that they accept the latter.
Latter-day Saint friends, will you choose the truth of God's word, and
reject the pretensions of Joseph Smith and the 'Book of Mormon'? We
exhort you to trust in Jesus Christ and His word alone, for "there is no
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts
4:12).
Reprint courtesy of Ken Simmons.
Brought to you with Love from:
The International Christian Discipleship Ministries
BBS:...........1-206-866-3621 (16.8/14.4 V.32b/HST)
VOICE:.........1-206-866-3623 (Ask for Tomas Hood.)
Post Office Box 2196
Olympia, Washington 98507-2196
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank