The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his074/morm14.arj/MORM14.TXT

Text File | 1989-08-11 | 34.6 KB | 666 lines

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 America!

.    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On the other hand, if the historical content proves to be correct, by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 LDS 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 number 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 brethren 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 empty-handed."  ('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 earlier.  While
Champollion was at that time struggling to decipher the Egyptian
hieroglyphics, 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
Egyptian 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 American 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
geographical 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 descendants 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 brethren...The brethren 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; 'Millennial 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 Guatemala, 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
Guatemala, 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 tells 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 transportation 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 occupied 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.

Courtesy of The Spirit's Domain, 300/1200, [phone]