The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his075/lds24.lzh/LDS24.TXT

Text File | 1991-07-08 | 35KB | 649 lines

CUL:Has American Archaeology verified the Book of Mormon?  by Hal Hougey

   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).