Anti-Mormon Geographical and Archaeological Attacks on BOM

#Anti-Mormons’ Geographical and Archaeological Attacks on the Book

#of Mormon

I am indebted for much of the material in this chapter to William J. Hamblin and his article “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon” (Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute).

It has become increasingly apparent that Joseph Smith, as he translated and throughout his lifetime, did not fully understand several things about the Book of Mormon. These included the book’s geography, archaeology (population dynamics), literary forms, and cultural content. It appears that Joseph never really sought for, nor did he obtain revelation from the Lord on the correct geography of the Book of Mormon.

It is interesting and ironic to note that critics of Joseph and the Book of Mormon have attempted to diminish him by exaggerating his abilities. Members of the Church have unwittingly, and more subtly, done a similar thing. John E. Clark, a Mesoamerican archaeologist and member of the Church wrote:

Critics see Joseph Smith as author of a romantic fiction, the Book of Mormon, and in so doing they distort both the man and the book beyond belief. They see the book as a logical product of its 1820s intellectual environment, combined with Joseph Smith’s native intelligence and deceitful propensities. Most Mormons fall into a more subtle error that also inflates Joseph’s talents; they confuse translation with authorship. They presume that Joseph Smith knew the contents of the book as if he were its real author, and they accord him perfect knowledge of the text. This presumption removes from discussion the most compelling evidence of the book’s authenticity—Joseph’s unfamiliarity with its contents. To put the matter clearly: Joseph Smith did not fully understand the Book of Mormon. I propose that he transmitted to readers an ancient book that he neither imagined nor wrote (“Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins,” BYU Studies 44/4 [2005]: 84-85).

#The Book of Mormon’s Geography

There has never been an official position of the Church on the geography of the Book of Mormon. There have been two major models for that geography:

1. The “hemispheric” geography model. This model places the “narrow neck of land” at the isthumus of Panana. The “land northward” is North America, and the “land southward” is South America.

This model also includes the “one people” archaeology model. That is, Lehi, when he and his traveling party disembarked somewhere on the western coast of the western hemisphere, found the land to be unpopulated (save, perhaps, for a few remnants of the Jaredite civilization). Only centuries later would the Lehites discover the Mulekites (Omni 1:14-15). The people of the Book of Mormon therefore became the founding fathers of the entire western hemisphere, and their descendants became the root native population of the Americas.

2. The “limited” geography model. This model places the narrow neck of land at the isthmus of Teohuantepec in southern Mexico. The “land Northward” is central Mexico, and the “land southward” is southeastern Mexico and Guatemala. By this model, the entire Book of Mormon land occupies an area of central America that is very roughly seven hundred miles long and two hundred miles wide (see the illustration Book of Mormon Lands).

An integral part of this model is that Lehi’s party, on arrival in the western hemisphere, found the land to be already populated. The Lehites, both Nephites and Lamanites, did intermarry with the indigenous population but remained, throughout the Book of Mormon saga, a relatively small group of people. They lived in a limited area of a large and well populated land. Consequently, the descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples, while they exist, have been well diluted by earlier indigenous populations and probably largely occupy a relatively limited area of Central America.

I believe that the evidences for this latter model are compelling (see John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, revised edition [Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992]. See also John Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985]). It is my view that this model has comfortably replaced the hemispheric geography model.

#Origin of the Hemispheric Geography Model

In the early decades of the Church, most Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, accepted the hemispheric geography model (Sorenson, Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 9-15). There is no evidence that the ideas of this model actually originated with the prophet Joseph. It seems more likely that those first exposed to the Book of Mormon, including Joseph during his process of translation, simply naturally and intuitively accepted this model. This seems to be the natural wont of most all people, even today, on their first exposure to the book. It is to presume a model close to the hemispheric geography model.

In this chapter we will consider the prophet Joseph’s early geography and archaeology notions. I will support the thesis that early on, he held to the ideas of the hemispheric (and one people) theory. Later on, however, during the Nauvoo period, there is evidence Joseph’s ideas seemed to shift toward the Limited Geography Model.

#Origin of the Limited Geography Model

An early version of the limited geography model arose within twelve years of the publication of the Book of Mormon. Indeed, Joseph Smith himself was either the originator of, or was closely associated with, the development of the core idea of the limited geography model.

In 1841 a book was authored by John Lloyd Stephens with illustrations by Frederick Catherwood. The book was Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan (2 vols., New York: Harper & Brothers, 1841). This work, not only recounted the author’s travels to the region, but described for the first time, many of the ruins found in what is not known as Mesoamerica. The book was an instant success and was widely praised in the national press. A survey of literature written on the Book of Mormon during the Nauvoo period suggests that Latter-day Saints were also interested in these Central American discoveries and were quick to compare these discoveries with the claims of the Book of Mormon.

Latter-day Saint readers in Nauvoo first became aware of the book in an article published in the June 15, 1841 issue of the Times and Seasons under the editorship of the Prophet’s brother Don Carlos Smith and Robert B. Thompson. These two noted the significance of the explorers’ discoveries for Latter-day Saints in an article entitled, “Amercan Antiquities—More Proofs of the Book of Mormon” (440-42). Several months later John Bernhisel, a recent convert serving as bishop over the saints in New York City, purchased a copy of the two volume work and on September 8 wrote to Joseph Smith informing him that he was sending him a copy of the set “as a token of my regard for you as a prophet of the Lord” (cited in Dean Jessee’s Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1002, 533]). Bernhisel asked Wilford Woodruff, who was returning home from his apostolic mission in Great Britain to carry the set back to the Prophet from New York to Nauvoo, which he did.

Joseph subsequently wrote to John Bernhisel. His letter unequivocally showed that he shared in the excitement about these discoveries. It also, in effect, signaled his approval of such interests in connection with the Book of Mormon, an interest that can be seen in subsequent Latter-day Saint publications and in some Latter-day saints themselves.

In February 1842, Joseph became editor of the Times and Seasons. He and the Twelve had been unhappy with how the previous editors had handled the paper. Joseph served in this position until mid-November 1842. John Taylor took over from Joseph, as Joseph was too busy with his other responsibilities in the Church. Joseph directly assumed responsibility for all articles published while he was editor.

During Joseph’s tenure as editor, between March and November 1842, the Times and Seasons published numerous articles of doctrinal and historical significance to the Church. This included the publication of the Prophet’s translations of the Book of Abraham, the Wentworth letter, early installments of the History of Joseph Smith, and two important letters from the Prophet to the Church giving instructions relating to baptism for the dead. We can be certain that all articles and editorials written during this period, including those attributed to other authors were carefully vetted and approved by the Prophet. During this period five articles on the Book of Mormon were published endorsing the work of Stephens and Catherwood to the saints. At least the first three of these have been shown to have been written by Joseph Smith himself using wordprint or stylometry analysis studies.

#Evidence of Joseph’s Early Acceptance of the Hemispheric Geography Model

In his writings about the Book of Mormon following its publication, Joseph used terms such as “this land,” “this continent,” and “this country.” How might we understand his intended meanings for these expressions?

“This land.” In June 1842, while Joseph was serving as editor for the Times and Seasons, an article appeared comparing Aztec traditions of the confounding of languages and the subsequent traveling of the people to the Western Hemisphere with those same traditions found in the book of Ether in the Book of Mormon. The article commented on the travels of the people subsequent to the confounding of languages to “this land.” It then commented on the remarkable similarity between the Book of Mormon and Aztec accounts of this tradition by saying: “These accounts, then, precisely agree, one of which was found in Ontario County, N. Y. [the Book of Mormon account], and the other in Mexico [the Aztec account]” (“Traits of Mosaic History” Times and Seasons [June 15, 1842]: 820). The editor of the article, Joseph Smith, seemed to considered both New York and Mexico to be part of “this land.”

“This Continent.” In his account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, now included in the Pearl of Great Price (JSH), the prophet Joseph wrote that the angel Moroni explained that the Book of Mormon gave an account of the “former inhabitants of this continent” (JSH 1:34). It is notable that Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defined “continent” as, “a great extent of land, not disjointed or interrupted by a sea; a connected tract of land of great extent; as the Eastern, and Western Continent.” Here, we have the idea of two main continents on the earth, a new, western or American Continent and an old or Eastern one. The Oxford English Dictionary states, “Formerly two continents were reckoned, the Old and the New; the former comprising Europe, Asia, and Africa, which form one continuous mass of land; the latter, North and South America, forming another.”

Evidence suggests that, early on, the saints, including Joseph Smith, thought of events in the Book of Mormon as having occurred throughout North and South America. Consider the following excerpts taken from a presentation by Matthew Roper at the FAIR conference on August 5, 2010 titles “Joseph Smith and the Question of Book of Mormon Geography”:

The Holy Bible professes to be a history of the peopling of the old continent—the Golden Bible of the new continent (William Owen “A Comparison between the Book of Mormon and the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, or The Gold Bible vs. The Holy Bible,” Free Enquirer, New York, 10 September, 1831, emphases added).

If Moses and the prophets, Christ and his apostles, were the real authors of the Bible, chiefly revealed and written on the continent of Asia, was not the Book of Mormon also written by men who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, on the continent of America? And did not Jesus Christ truly appear on the continent of America, after his resurrection, and choose twelve apostles to preach his gospel: and did he not deliver his holy doctrine, and teach the same to numerous multitudes on this American continent? (Eli Gilbert to Oliver Cowdery, September 24, 1834, Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 1/1 [October 1834]:10, emphases added).

The Bible was written by a people upon the Eastern continent, but the Book of Mormon by a people upon this continent (E. Snow and Benjamin Winchester, “An Address to the Citizens of Salem (Mass.) And Vicinity,” Times and Seasons 3/1 [15 November 1841]: 582, emphases added).

This book also tells us that our Savior made his appearance upon this continent after his resurrection, that he planted the gospel here in all its fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists; the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessing, as was enjoyed on the eastern continent (1842 Wentworth Letter, emphases added).

The Book of Mormon informs us that Christ visited this continent

after the resurrection, and we believe it, because it is in perfect accordance with the glorious attributes of Jehovah. He would never leave one half of the world in darkness on the subject of revelation, and then punish his creatures eternally for not believing what they never heard (G. J. Adams, A Lecture on the Authenticity & Scriptural Character of the Book of Mormon [Boston: J. E. Farwell, 1844], 22, emphases added).

As to the original inhabitants of the continent of America, the Book of Mormon backs up the description of immense “ruins” in Central America, dispels all doubt (“Ancient Ruins,” Times and Seasons [December 15, 1844]: 744-47, emphases added).

Clearly, the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that the Prophet referred to all the Americas when he spoke of “this continent” and not the United States or North America only. A “continent” in Joseph’s day was not exactly as we would define a continent today.

“This country.” While the word “country” can sometimes refer to a nation such as the United States, it could also refer to “any tract of land, or inhabited land; any region, as distinguished from other regions” (Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828). “This country” can be read in a broad and generic sense, contrasting the land or region of the Americas from the eastern land or region of Europe or the land or region of Asia. That this was Joseph Smith’s meaning can be shown from the Prophet’s writings and those of his close associates. Parley P. Pratt, who was one of the earliest missionaries to the Lamanites, described the American Indians of North, Central, and South America as “Lamanites” inhabiting, “a country of more than seven thousand miles long and two thousand miles broad, extending from the frozen and scarcely explored regions of Hudson’s Bay on the north, to the extremity of Cape Horn, or the southern end of South America, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, east and west” (“Present Condition and prospects of the American Indians, or Lamanites,” Latter- day Saints’ Millennial Star 2/3 [July 2, 1841]: 40-42).

In a letter written on November 16, 1841, thanking John Bernhisel for sending him a copy of Stephens and Catherwood’s book, Incidents of Travels in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, the Prophet said, “Of all the histories that have been written pertaining to the antiquities of this country it is the most luminous and comprehensive” (Joseph Smith to John Bernhisel, November 16, 1841). Here again is the use of “this country” to include Central America in connection with the Book of Mormon. This was just months before the Prophet wrote his letter to John Wentworth. So, when he speaks of “the aboriginal inhabitants of this country” and the Indian “that now inhabit this country” there can be little doubt that he and others were thinking in terms of all the Americas and not only the United States.

We may summarize by saying that usage shows that the words “this land,” “this continent,” and “this country” were used by Joseph and his associates, when referring to the Book of Mormon, in reference to all the Americas and not a limited location.

#Did Joseph Receive Revelation on Book of Mormon Geography?

Some claims have been made that Joseph Smith’s 1842 letter to John Wentworth provided evidence that the prophet Moroni gave Joseph specific information regarding Book of Mormon geography. A careful analysis of the letter indicates that Moroni did provide Joseph with considerable information about the book to be translated, but geography was included in Moroni’s instructions.

Others have claimed that Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph’s mother, claimed that Joseph received revelation on the book’s geography. Lucy did recall Joseph providing his family, in stories, with many aspects of the culture of the Book of Mormon people (History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, 83). But again, there is no mention, in Lucy’s writings, of Joseph’s providing them with any geographic information.

Based on D&C 125:1-4, some developed the idea that a settlement, across the Mississippi River from Nauvoo in Iowa, named Zarahemla was said to be named by the Lord and was located on the very site of that ancient Book of Mormon city. That passage reads:

What is the will of the Lord concerning the saints in the Territory of Iowa? Verily, thus saith the Lord, I say unto you, if those who call themselves by my name and are essaying to be my saints, if they will do my will and keep my commandments concerning them, let them gather themselves together unto the places which I shall appoint unto them by my servant Joseph, and build up cities unto my name, that they may be prepared for that which is in store for a time to come. Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it. And let all those who come from the east, and the west, and the north, and the south, that have desires to dwell therein, take up their inheritance in the same, as well as in the city of Nashville, or in the city of Nauvoo, and in all the stakes which I have appointed, saith the Lord.

There is no evidence in the historical record that the Lord or even Joseph Smith names this settlement Zarahemla. The saints did what they often did. That is, they named placed they lived after places mentioned in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. There is no reason to associate the Iowa settlement with ancient Zarahemla.

Some claim that Joseph Smith taught that the ancient Book of Mormon city of Manti was in Randolph County Missouri. Proponents of this claim reference two documents in support of this view. The first is an entry from the journal of Samuel D. Tyler, an early member of the Church who traveled with the “Kirtland Camp” to Missouri in 1838. The Kirtland Camp was a group of five hundred saints who traveled together from Missouri to Far West, Missouri. Tyler’s journal for September 25, 1838 reads as follows:

We passed through Huntsville, Co. Seat of Randolph Co. pop. 450, and three miles further we bought 32 bu. of corn off one of the brethren who resides in this place. There are several of the brethren round about here and this is the ancient site of the City of Manti, which is spoken of in the Book of Mormon and this is appointed one of the Stakes of Zion, and it is in Randolph Country, Missouri, three miles west of the county seat (Journal of Samuel D. Tyler, 25 September 1838, MS 1761, Church Historian’s Department, Salt Lake City, emphasis added).

Contrary to this claim, there is no historical evidence that Tyler was reporting something he heard Joseph Smith say to the Kirtland Camp. In fact, the Prophet was not even present at the time. He did not travel with the Kirtland Camp from Ohio to Missouri, but was already living in Far West several counties away. Tyler never explains where he heard this information, nor does he attribute the ideas about the city of Manti to Joseph Smith. What was the source of this local hearsay? Was it based upon something Joseph said, or does it reflect speculation among the local brethren? How accurately was it reported? The Tyler journal does not provide an answer to these questions.

The second source cited as evidence that ancient Manti was in Missouri is the Manuscript History of the Church. The relevant entry for September 25, 1838, reads as follows: “The camp passed through Huntsville in Randolph County which has been appointed as one of the stakes of Zion, and is the ancient site of the City of Manti” (Manuscript History of Joseph Smith, 25 September 1838, 829, emphasis added). This source is not a contemporary journal written by the Prophet or by anyone else in the Kirtland Camp in 1838, but was actually written by Willard Richards after the Prophet’s death. Evidence suggests that Richard’s entry was based upon the Tyler journal entry. When church historian Andrew Jensen published this entry in the Historical Record in 1888, he incorrectly assumed that the prophet Joseph was the source of this information and inserted the words “which the Prophet said” immediately before the part of the sentence about Manti, making it read “which the Prophet said was the ancient site of the city of Manti.”

Elias Smith has provided another contemporary source for the incident. He recorded: “We came through Huntsville the country seat of Randolph . . . near the place where the city of Manti is to be built and encamped for the night” (“Journal of the camp of the Seventies during their journey from Kirtland to Far West” 25 September 1838, MS 4952, folder 2, LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City). Elias Smith did not equate the land near Huntsville with the ancient location of Manti. It would appear that the Missouri saints in 1838 initially anticipated the establishment of a future settlement and stake of Zion in the region, much as they did later with the Zarahemla settlement in Iowa. Neither Samuel Tyler nor Elias Smith attributed these plans to any prophetic revelation on Book of Mormon geography. When church historian B. H. Roberts prepared the History of the Church for publication he utilized the Elias Smith account. Thus, there was no reference to a relationship of the site to the ancient city of Manti.

Please see also the account of the Zelph episode in chapter , The Zelph Story. In June 1834, the Prophet dictated a letter to Emma Smith in which he mentioned some of his experiences of his journey from Ohio to Missouri with Zion’s Camp. He spoke of “wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once believed people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as proof of its divine authenticity (Joseph Smith to Emma Smith, June 4, 1834, in Dean Jessee’s Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 345-46). This seems likely the result of Joseph’s mistaken intuitive preconceptions as to the location of Book of Mormon lands. He said nothing to suggest it was the result of any specific revelation.

We may summarize the evidences of Joseph’s lack of revelation on Book of Mormon geography. In 1843 Joseph Smith was interviewed by a reporter from the Pittsburgh Gazette. He acknowledged in that interview that he was indeed a prophet and that the Lord did reveal himself to him. But he also explained that he did not always get revelation when he asked for it. “Speaking of revelations, he stated that when he was in a ‘quandary,’ he asked the Lord for a revelation, and when he could not get it, he ‘followed the dictates of his own judgment,’ which were as good as revelation to him; but he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation” (“The Prairies, Nauvoo, Joe Smith, the Temple, the Mormons, etc.,” Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette, September 15, 1843).

The preponderance of evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith’s revelations included details about Book of Mormon geography. Rather it suggests that this, as with many other questions, was an issue where Joseph Smith, as time allowed him to give it attention, followed the dictates of his own judgment” and expressed his own thinking. When Joseph Smith used terms such as “this land,” “this continent,” or “this country,” he seems to have adopted the wording of fellow Latter-day Saints who thought of the Book of Mormon in broad terms inclusive of all the Americas.

The evidence does suggest that Joseph shared the interest of his fellow Latterday Saints in discoveries that were thought to have shed light on the authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, wherever they came from, including those from Central America. But he never seemed to have given any indication that these interests were based upon more than a knowledge that the Book of Mormon was true and that one day the Lord would make all things clear. There is likewise no indication that he ever sought to set forth a detailed geographical model for the saints. This certainly leaves open the possibility that Joseph may have erred owing to his non-revealed and intuitive biases about Book of Mormon geography and archaeology.

#Anti-Mormon Attacks based on Geographical and Archaeological Issues

Generally those leveling geographical and archaeological attacks against the Book of Mormon betray evidence of being poorly informed. They have not read the book carefully; nor have they studied carefully the pertinent historical settings. Their arguments often contain significant logical flaws. One example of an author misusing a reference and creating a nonexistent contradiction is found in Luke P. Wilson’s article, “The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains,” Hear and Mind: The Newsletter of Gospel Truths Ministries [fall 1992]: 3). He tried to make that point that the hill Cumorah could not be located in Mesoamerica since the Book of Mormon describes the hill Cumorah as being “an exceeding great distance from the narrow neck of land.” He is misusing a quotation from Helaman 3:3-4 which says:

And it came to pass in the forty and sixth [year], yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land. And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers.

Where in these two verses does mention Cumorah? It doesn’t. It simply says that a group of people migrated “an exceedingly great distance” to the north. This is the only instance of the phrase “an exceedingly great distance” in the Book of Mormon. These people probably went past the hill Cumorah to a land of many waters. Here Wilson adds a nonexistent reference to Cumorah to his quotation and then attempts to create a nonexistent contradiction. This is a common anti-Mormon tactic.

I will consider several of the anti-Mormons’ commonly used lines of attack: The Church has failed to positively and unequivocally identify any specific Book of Mormon site. One critic of the Church wrote, “One might expect that determining the geographical setting of the Book of Mormon lands would be a fairly simple undertaking” (Luke P. Wilson, “The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains,” Heart and Mind: The Newsletter of Gospel Truths Ministries [fall 1992], 2). Actually, the opposite is true. There are several notable examples where precise reconstruction of archaic geographies has proven difficult if not impossible.

One example is that scholars now agree that the Norsemen did indeed discover and temporarily colonize North America in the eleventh century AD. The precise location of the “Vinland” of the sagas is hotly disputed with nearly a dozen candidates ranging between “Hudson Bay and the state of Florida” (Gwyn Jones, The Norse Atlantic Saga, 2nd, ed. [New York: Oxford, 1986], 128).

The Bible itself is another case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55% of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified (Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, trans. A. F. Rainey, 2nd ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979], 129). Examples include the fact that there are over twenty candidates for the location of Mount Sinai. There are many differing theories for the route taken by the Israelites during the exodus.

It would seem that the key to identifying biblical place names is the preservation of the ancient name over time. Of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55%. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name to the present. Only 72 places (15% of the 475) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity. And only about half of these carry a fair degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural. In other words, without the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with reasonable certainty (8%). But, in fact, these 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites. It is only because of the relatively few biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these 36 sites can be located (Ibid., 128-29).

Allow me to summarize. Of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only 36 (8%) have been identified with reasonable certainty where is no preservation of the place name to the present. And these 36 have been identified only because of their described location relationships to known historical sites.

A discontinuity of place names (“toponyms”) is a common historical occurrence, particularly in periods of major cultural, linguistic, and political transformations, similar to those described in the Book of Mormon itself. We can see just this phenomenon in the Book of Mormon, where the Jaredite hill Ramah is later called the hill Cumorah by the Nephites (Ether 15:11; Mormon 6:6). A serious problem facing Book of Mormon geography is the high rate of discontinuity Mesoamerican toponyms between the Pre- Classic period (before AD 300) and the Post-Classic period (after AD 900). There was also a major discontinuity at the beginning of the Colonial Period (after AD 1520). For example, what were the original Pre-Classic Mesoamerican names for sites currently bearing Spanish colonial names such as Monte Alban, San Lorenzo, La Venta, or El Mirador? These and many other Mesoamerican sites bear only Spanish names, dating from no earlier than the sixteenth century.

Additional problems arise even for those sites that can be located, and for which there are surviving Mesoamerican place names. Most of these names come from four languages: Aztec (Nahuatl), Mixtec, Zapotec, and various dialects of Maya. For each of these languages, the vast majority of place names are not mentioned in records before the sixteenth century. This was over a thousand years following the Book of Mormon period (Joyce Marcus, Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992], chapter 6, pages 153-89).

Should we be surprised to find that the geographer of the Book of Mormon faces huge and even insurmountable problems? Taken together, these problems and many others mean that we will most likely never be able to learn the Pre-Classic names for most ancient Mesoamerican sites.

The truth of the Bible has been verified by its archaeology. The truth of the Book of Mormon has not. One specific example of using archaeology to confirm the presence of a biblical event is the following. One Evangelical, anti-Mormon author, Joel Groat, claims that “excavations done at the site [of Jericho] . . . support this biblical story” (Luke P. Wilson, “The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains,” Heart and Mind: The Newsletter of Gospel Truths Ministries [fall 1992]: 2). Groat then quotes Bryant G. Wood’s analysis of the destruction of Jericho (“Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology Review 16/2 [1990]: 44-59). In that article, Wood states that his model functions only if the Exodus is dated to about 1400 BC. He wrote: “One major problem remains: the date, 1400 BCE. Most scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 BCE because of the belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150-200 years later.” Scholars have excellent reasons for dating the Exodus to the thirteenth century (about 1250 BC), since a fifteenth-century Exodus (1400s BC) creates more problems in the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan than it solves. The only way Wood’s theory works is if you redate the Exodus from about 1250 to 1450. Imagine what the anti-Mormon response would be if Latter-day Saint scholars attempted to move the fall of Maya civilization back 450 years so that it coincided with the fall of the Nephites about AD 400. Needless to say we would be accused (and rightly so) of gross distortion and deceit.

The main point here is that this Groat’s claim of archeology providing support for the Bible is often controversial (see John J. Bimson and David Livingston, “Redating the Exodus,” Biblical Archaeology Review [September/October 1987]: 40-53, 66-68; Baruch Halpern, “Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed,” Biblical Archaeology Review [November/December 1987]: 56-61; John Bimson, “A Reply to Baruch Halpern,” Biblical Archaeology Review [July/August 1988]: 52-55; Manfred Bietak, “Contra Bimson,” Biblical Archaeology Review [July/August 1988]: 54-55). Many scholars reject the idea that Jericho even existed as a city at the time of Joshua, while others reject the idea that there was an Israelite conquest of Canaan at all.

Groat then unwisely quotes William G. Dever as lending “support for the authenticity and accuracy of the biblical record” (Luke P. Wilson, “The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains,” Heart and Mind: The Newsletter of Gospel Truths Ministries [fall 1992]: 4). Does Dever believe that archaeology “supports” the Bible?

The Bible . . . has its limitations as a historical document. . . . The myths of Genesis 1-11, comprising the “primeval history,” which deal with the creation, the flood and the distant origins of the family of man, can be read today as deeply moving literature, with profound moral implications. They inform us about the thought-world of ancient Israel, but they can hardly be read in the literal or modern sense as history (“Archaeology and the Bible: Understanding Their Special Relationship,” Biblical Archaeology Review 16/3 [May/June 1990]: 52).

And the situation is not improved for the later chapters of Genesis and the Pentateuch in Dever’s view. “After a century of modern research,” Dever notes, “neither biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the patriarchal or Mosaic eras” (Ibid.). Archaeology, Dever says, “has not brought to light any direct evidence to substantiate the story that an Abraham lived, that he migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan, or that there was a Joseph who found his way to Egypt and rose to power there. . . . The tradition is made up of legends that still may be regarded as containing moral truths, but until now they must be regarded as of uncertain historical provenance [origin]” (Ibid., 54- 55). And what of Moses and the spectacular events of the Exodus from Egypt? “Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness . . . we have no evidence whatsoever” (Ibid., 55). As an example, Dever cites “recent Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea, the Sinai oasis where the Israelites are said to have encamped for 38 years” (Ibid.). Surely such a lengthy stay by such a large group, somewhere during or prior to 1200 BC, would leave considerable evidence. And, indeed, the Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea “have revealed an extensive settlement, but not so much as a potsherd earlier than the tenth century BC” (Ibid.).

Moving forward in history to the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine, Dever notes once again that “the evidence is largely negative. In particular, the ‘conquest model,’ derived principally from the Book of Joshua, has been largely discredited. That Israel did emerge in Canaan in the early Iron Age is behond doubt. But archaeology has not shown that the settlement followed a series of destructions, miraculous or otherwise” (Ibid.). Professor Dever’s verdict is straightforward: “The Bible cannot simply be read at face value as history” (Ibid., 53). Dever is well known for his strenuous rejection of the term “biblical archaeology.” Even some conservative Bible scholars concur with Dever’s basic position on the lack of archaeological confirmation of much of the Bible (see for example John Bright, A History of Israel, 3d ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981], 76).

The main point here is the limitations of archaeology for “proving” historical texts or religious beliefs. Archaeology cannot prove religious beliefs to be true. Even if every historical event in the Bible were to be archaeologically verified, it still would not prove that God exists or that Jesus is the Christ.

Perhaps we, in the Church, should not look forward to the time when the Book of Mormon will be “proven authentic” by archaeological evidence. But even if the book were validated by archaeological evidence, Evangelical authors like Wilson and Groat would not accept its teachings. They reject it because of their a priori rejection of the possibility of modern revelation.

Groat and Wilson’s contrast between a Bible that is archaeologically “proven” and a Book of Mormon that is archaeologically “disproven” is obviously falllacious. It rests on a misrepresentation of what biblical archaeology actually demonstrates. There are still numerous disputes and unanswered questions concerning archaeology and the historicity of the Bible, despite the fact that the Bible has been studied by literally thousands of professional historians and archaeologists for over a century and a half. The Book of Mormon, in contrast, has been studied by only a few dozen professionals for only a few decades.

Some anti-Mormons have tried to pit the “traditional geographic and archaeological teachings” of the LDS Church against the “theories of modern Mormon scholars.” In effect they are comparing the hemispheric geography model with the limited geography model. Their implication is that the “revealed” early model is different than the present-day model. Does this mean Joseph’s revelations are not valid? At this point in this chapter, the reader should have no problem answering this argument by himself. No claim has ever been made, by Joseph Smith or anyone else, that either geographic model was given by revelation from the Lord. The understanding of the book’s geography has evolved by quite natural means from an earlier flawed intuitive version to a more sound present-day version.

The hemispheric geography model must be valid because Joseph Smith identified the Hill Cumorah in New York. There are two major flaws in this claim:

1. First, the name “Hill Cumorah,” referring to the hill on which Joseph found the plates, was not named by Joseph Smith. Joseph referred to the hill only as “a hill of considerable size” (JSH 1:51; HC 1:15; Dean C. Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith 1:281, n. 1). The first person to name the hill after the hill in the Book of Mormon was Oliver Cowdery (Oliver Cowdery, Latter Day Saint’s Messenger and Advocate [July 1835]: 158-59; Dean C. Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, 2 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984], 1:78-91). Even though Joseph may have accepted this identification, it was never put forward as revelation.

2. The identification of the hill near Palmyra as Cumorah actually contradicts a statement in the Book of Mormon. Mormon wrote, “Having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record [the Book of Mormon] out of the [large] plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates [the plates of Mormon and the small plates of Nephi] which I gave unto my son Moroni” (Mormon 6:6). In other words, the Book of Mormon explicitly states that the records hidden in the Mesoamerican Cumorah were not the plates from which Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. They were the large plates of Nephi and any other records of the Nephites. The Book of Mormon provides no name for the place in which the golden plates found by Joseph Smith were to be buried.

Joseph Smith identified by revelation the coast of Chile as the place where Lehi’s party arrived in the New World. This statement is based not on the writings of Joseph smith, but on Frederick G. Williams’s interpretation of an anonymous manuscript, that Williams believed derived from Joseph Smith. This statement did not appear in print until 1882. Much of the attribution of the hemispheric geography model to Joseph Smith—and thereby the acceptance of that model by Latter-day Saints— comes from the mistaken assumption that the Chile interpretation represents a revelation to Joseph Smith. A careful examination of the manuscripts and development of this idea, however, has demonstrated that there is no reason to attribute this idea to Joseph Smith, and it certainly was never put forward as a revelation (Frederick G. Williams III, “Did Lehi Land in Chile? An Assessment of the Frederick G. Williams Statement,” FARMS paper, 1988; John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992], 57-61).

The Zelph story. This is another piece of evidence that is frequently used to associate Joseph Smith with the hemispheric geography model. See chapter , The Zelph Story.

The LDS Church has had to accommodate mistaken past notions about Book of Mormon geography by awkwardly postulating the existence of two Cumorahs. There is only one valid hill named Cumorah. It is the one described in the Book of Mormon (Mormon 6:6). The hill in New York that now bears that name was so named by the early saints because it was where the prophet Moroni buried the plates of Mormon and the small plates of Nephi. It was also the place where Joseph unearthed those plates. The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the hill called Cumorah was not the place where either event would happen (again, see Mormon 6:6). The hill in New York was named after the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon.

The question of how the plates of Mormon and small plates of Nephi (combined into one set weighing about sixty pounds) could have been carried from Mesoamerica to New York has been answered by John L. Sorenson (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 44-45). An examination of a map of North America shows that it is possible to sail along the coast of Mexico, up the Mississippi River, and then up the Ohio River to within less than one hundred miles of the New York hill where the plates were buried. Trails and waterways along these major rivers have existed for several thousand years. John Sorenson provides a sixteenth-century example of someone traveling a similar route in less than a year (Ibid., 45). Moroni had thirty-five years between the final battles of the Nephites (AD 385) and when he buried the plates (420). Thus the plates could have been transported by canoe to New York, along the wellused waterways of the Hopewell Indians (who flourished about 200 BC to AD 400—see Brian M. Fagan, Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent [New York: Thames and Hudson, 1991], 366-67, 370-76, 392-94).

Latter-day Saints believe that all Native Americans are genetically descended only from the Lamanites. They rightly point out that the introduction to the Book of Mormon identifies the remnant of Book of Mormon peoples, following the great final war of destruction, as the “principal ancestors of the American Indians.” It is true that we claim some type of genealogical relationship between modern indigenous native populations of North, Central, and South America and the Book of Mormon remnant. We also feel that they are the beneficiaries of certain promises made to them in the Book of Mormon.

The expression “principal ancestors” does imply that the Book of Mormon peoples are not the only ancestors. We believe that many other peoples also migrated to this hemisphere and become part of the native American population. In addition, a careful reading of the Book of Mormon suggests that there were major populations of indigenous peoples in the western hemisphere when the Lehites arrived (see John L. Sorenson’s “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1/1 [fall 1992]: 1-34).

Thus, the alleged problems of population levels, genetics, and languages of modern Native Americans are largely irrelevant, since the Book of Mormon allows for, and in many ways insists upon, the existence of other inhabitants of the Americas.

Latter-day Saint general authorities have generally condemned the limited geography theory. It is true that a few general authorities have expressed contrary opinions regarding the limited geography model. These include Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:227-241). Harold B. Lee wrote: “From the writings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and of other inspired men, it seems all are in agreement that the followers of Lehi came to the western shores of South America. . . . I believe we are (today) not far from the place where the history of the people of Lehi commenced in Western America” (quoted in Sorenson’s Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 390). Note that here, President Lee is expressing his opinion (“I believe,” “it seems”) that South America was the site of the landing of Lehi. President Spencer W. Kimball is also reported to have said a similar thing about the Lehite landing site (personal communication to me from Dr. Ernest Wilkinson, President Kimball’s personal physician).

It is important to note that the opinions of these general authorities, expressed at the time they were written, do not express any official position of the Church. I have stated previously that the Church has no official position. These same general authorities may not have expressed the same opinions had they lived to benefit by modern scholarship on the matter.

It is interesting to note that the limited geography model has been published in the Ensign, the church’s official magazine. Also John Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon was published by Deseret Book, church’s publishing company.

The real question is not which general authorities or which scholars believe which model. Rather, it is which model best matches the geographical data contained in the Book of Mormon. While a superficial reading of the book may seem to point vaguely to a hemispheric geography model, a careful reading substantiates the limited geography model at many different levels (see Sorensons’s Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 32, 215-367; see also Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon and Palmer’s In Search of Cumorah; see also Clark’s, “Book of Mormon Geography” in Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:176-79). It should be clear that the official Latter-day Saint position on the limited geography model is not antagonistic. In recent decades the overwhelming trend among both Latter-day Saint scholars and leaders of the Church has been increasingly to adopt some version of the limited geography model.

Prior to Columbus there is no solid evidence for the immigration via other routes involving long sea voyages from the Old World to the New World. John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raisch have published an award-winning bibliography listing and summarizing thousands of articles by non-Mormons that examine the possibility of pre-Columbian contacts between the Old and New Worlds (Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, 2 vols. [Provo, UT: Research Press, 1990]). While the issues continue to be debated in academic circles, for an excellent article summarizing the wide range of possible pre-Columbian contacts between the Old and New Worlds by one of the leading advocates of such contacts (and a non-Mormon), see Stephen C. Jett’s “Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Contacts,” in Jesse D. Jennings, ed., Ancient South Americans [San Francisco: Freeman, 1983], 336-93).

The limited geography model requires “northward” and “southward” be considered slightly different from “true” north as recognized by today’s geographers. This objection is raised because of the northeast to southwest orientation of the long axis of the proposed Book of Mormon land. In the book these same directions are referred to as “north” or “northward” and “south” or “southward.”

This question has been long since and most satisfactorily been settled (see Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 38-42; William J. Hamblin, “Directions in Hebrew, Egyptian, and Nephite Language,” in Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 183-86; Sorenson, Geography of Book of Mormon Events, 399-415).

It has been convincingly demonstrated that ancient peoples conceived of north and south based on orientations and landmarks which frequently do not coincide with the modern compass. Directions, then, are not a universal absolute. The Mesoamerican culture treated maps much more loosely that we treat them today. We demand accurate details, but Mesoamerican cultures were unconcerned with the exact mileage between places and the exact placement of north and south (Joyce Marcus, Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992], 189).

One plausible solution is found in the Hebrew convention of naming directions. The Israelites of Palestine derived directions as though standing with their backs to the Mediterranean Sea, facing the desert to the east. “Yam” (“sea”) meant “seaward” or “west,” for the Mediterranean lay in that direction, while “qedem” (“fore” or “front”) meant “straight ahead” or “east.” Then “Yamin” (“right hand”) meant “south,” while “shemol” (“left hand”) denoted “north.” In fact we don’t know what Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and

Nephi did call their directions since the first terms for directions appear only hundreds of years after their first landing (Mosiah 7:5; 9:14). By the same convention as used in ancient Palestine, Lehi’s party may have referred to directions based on the seashore which runs northwest- southeast. Thus, by that convention, their directions would be forty-five or more degrees off the actual compass directions. What would they call “qedem,” intending eastward, would actually mean northeast or even almost north and so on. It is interesting that in the Mayan languages of Mesoamerica, “south” meant “on the right hand” and north “on the left,” corresponding to the Hebrew convention. Also in the ancient Mayan culture, the gulf of Mexico was the “east sea” while the Pacific Ocean is the “west sea.”

How do a “sea north” and “sea south” fit into the limited geography model? The north and south seas are mentioned only once (Helaman 3:8). In that verse, it seems likely to me that the entire phrase “the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east” is not only hyperbolic but also metaphorical. It is likely that Mormon is waxing poetical and that the phrase has no real concrete meaning, rather he intends only to say that the Nephites spread over a wide area. It is interesting that in a parallel passage in Helaman 11:20, describing the same sort of population expansion, no north or south sea is mentioned: “And thus it did come to pass that the people of Nephi began to prosper again in the land, and began to build up their waste places, and began to multiply and spread, even until they did cover the whole face of the land, both on the northward and on the southward, from the sea west to the sea east.” All specific references or allusions to Book of Mormon seas are only to the east and west seas.

John E. Clark has analyzed this question (“A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1 [1989]: 63-67). His view in general is in agreement with mine. He does add the idea that it was a common idea in ancient cultures that the earth was surrounded by the primordial “ocean.” Thus the vague mentions of the north and south seas refer to geographical cosmic world-view of seas surrounding the entire landmass, rather than specific identifiable bodies of water.

The mention of metals in the Book of Mormon is anachronistic. Some anti- Mormons interpret the Book of Mormon as saying that there were large-scale metal “industries” among the Nephites. John L. Sorenson has demonstrated that pre-classic Mesoamericans used a wide variety of metals (“Metals and Metallurgy Relating to the Book of Mormon,” a FARMS paper, 1992). Sorenson also offers a full discussion and analysis of metals used in the Book of Mormon (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 278-88).

Wheat, barley, flax (linen), grapes and olives were not found in Book of Mormon times in Mesoamerica, yet these are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does not actually claim that grapes or olives existed or were cultivated in the New World. Rather, Nephi and Jacob—both of whom were born in the

Old World—mention grapes and olives either in reference to the Old World, or allegorically (“The Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5,” ed. John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks, BYU Studies, 35:1). The Book of Mormon does mention the use of wine in the New World, but wine does not necessarily refer to the fermented juice of grapes. In can include the fermented liquid derived from a wide variety of fruits or plants, including, for example, dandelions (J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weinder, The Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989], 20:389c. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 186-87, discusses wine and its possible Mesoamerican referents. Intoxicating drinks were known in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, see Linda Schele and Mary E. Miller, The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art [New York: Braziller, 1986], 145-155, 180, 192, 255).

The mention of barley in the Book of Mormon has long been regarded as a hopeless anachronism. In 1983 archaeologists discovered that indeed a variety of barley was used by pre-Columbian Americans (The discovery was reported in the December 1983 issue of Science 83, and summarized by John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, in Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 162-64). Likewise “linen” and “silk”—though not exactly the same as their Old World counterparts—were known in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (John L. Sorenson, “Possible ‘Silk’ and ‘Linen’ in the Book of Mormon,” in Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 162-64).

There are several animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon which are not thought to have existed in pre-Columbian America. Latter-day Saint scholars have dealt twith this issue extensively, although all the questions have not been completely answered (John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 288-99; John L. Sorenson, “Animals in the Book of Mormon: An Annotated Bibliography,” FARMS paper, 1992, contains a complete listing of all references to animals in the Book of Mormon, and a bibliography to possible Mesoamerican referents).

There are actually some twelve specific animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Six of them are found in 1 Nephi 18:25. The entire list of twelve includes the ass (see also Mosiah 12:5), the cow (see also Ether 9:18), the dog (Mosiah 12:2; Alma 16:10; Helaman 7:19; 3 Nephi 14:6), the goat (see also Enos 1:21; Ether 9:18), the wild goat, the horse (2 Nephi 12:7; Enos 1:21; Alma 18:9, 10, 12; Alma 20:6; 3 Nephi 3:22; 3 Nephi 4:4; 3 Nephi 6:1; 3 Nephi 21:14; Ether 9:19), the sheep (Ether 9:18), the ox (see also 2 Nephi 21:7; 2 Nephi 30:13; Mosiah 13:24), the swine (3 Nephi 14:6; Ether 9:18), the elephant (Ether 9:19), the “curelom” (Ether 9:19), and the “cumom” (Ether 9:19).

Also mentioned are calf, cattle, fowl, lamb, and fatling which are variations of the twelve already mentioned.

Since the classification and nomenclature of animals have varied so widely from culture to culture, it is probably best not to assume that these animals are the same as we know them today. For example, there is no good evidence that the cow as we know it was present in the Americas before the time of Columbus. What then is referred to in the Book of Mormon by the term “cow”? It is not entirely possible to know, but we might speculate. At the time of the Spanish conquest, some of the Indians of Mesoamerica owned and tended herds of deer. In Peru some pastoral Indians kept domesticated llamas. Could these be the Book of Mormon’s “cow”? Perhaps also the “cow” is the bison or the alpaca?

Some have long been troubled by the mention of the horse in the Book of Mormon since horses were not generally thought to be present in the western hemisphere before the time of Columbus. It would seem, however, that all one has to do is be patient. New discoveries are being made all the time. John L. Sorenson has reported, “Actual horse bones have been found in a number of archaeological sites on the Yucatan Peninsula, in one case with artifacts six feet beneath the surface under circumstances that rule out their coming from Spanish horses” (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 295-96). Also, can we be certain that the Book of Mormon’s “horse” is, in fact, a true horse as we know the horse? Ancient Mesoamerican figures have been found with people riding on the back of deer, holding onto their ears or horns.

Brother Sorenson has suggested, using the list of animals known to have existed in Mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times, the following identities for other animals mentioned in the book: The “ox” may have been the tapir, the llama, or the bison. The “ass” might be the tapir or the llama. The llama or the alpaca might qualify to be called the “sheep.” The “goat” may have been the deer, and the “swine” fits with the peccary.

The “dog” is probably one of the species of dog indigenous to Mesoamerica. Metaphorical references to animals also occur. For instance, “ye are his sheep . . . suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you” (Alma 5:60); “the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire” (3 Nephi 7:8); “they shall be driven before like a dumb ass” (Mosiah 12:5); “they were struck with great fear, and fled from the presence of Alma and Amulek even as a goat fleeth with her young from two lions” (Alma 14:29).

Eminent Mesoamerican archaeologists like Michael Coe and important institutions such as the Smithsonian do accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Michael Coe has written: “There is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [in the historicity of the Book of Mormon]” (Luke P. Wilson, “The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains,” Heart and Mind: The Newsletter of Gospel Truths Ministries [fall 1992]: 5). It is possible for anti-Mormons can find scholars who will claim there is “absolutely nothing” supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Atheists can also marshal the opinions of scholars, such as William Dever, regarding the lack of archaeological proof of the historicity of the Bible.

When Coe says there is “absolutely nothing” in the archaeological record which supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon, what he is more accurately saying is that all the archaeological evidence known to him, from the Book of Mormon period, can be adequately interpreted and accounted for based on the assumption that there were no Nephites or Lamanites. This is quite a different proposition. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll community, ancient Near East historians could also adequately explain the history of the ancient Near East without a single reference to the Dead Sea Scroll community. Yet this group existed whether or not scholars were able or willing to perceive their existence.

The historicity of the Book of Mormon has been abundantly attested to by literally hundreds of “evidences” now available to those who study diligently the book. See Book of Mormon Evidences—I Promise You, chapter . If scholars like Michael Coe were willing to read the Book of Mormon and make themselves aware of the many evidences, they would have to acknowledge the high degree of probability that the book is authentic. It is likely he will not. Hence, his testimony against the book is meaningless.