Comparing Book of Mormon Geography Models: Among Book of Mormon enthusiasts, there are two primary camps of belief concerning where the events in the book took place. One camp called the Heartland group, believes the Book of Mormon took place in the ‘heartland’ or center of the eastern United States. This group uses archaeological evidence of ancient Hopewell, Adena, and middle woodland cultures to support their model’s claims. A second, more academic group of Book of Mormon enthusiasts believe the Book of Mormon took place entirely in the Mesoamerican area of Southern Mexico and Northern Guatemala. This group correlates Mayan ruins in Chiapas and Veracruz with Book of Mormon events.
Map of ancient America depicts a hemispheric model of Book of Mormon lands.
Various locations have been proposed as the geographical setting of the Book of Mormon, or the set of locations where the events described in the Book of Mormon is said to have taken place. There is no universal consensus – even among Mormon scholars – regarding the placement of these locations in the known world, other than somewhere in the Americas.
A popular “traditional” view among many Latter Day Saint faithful covers much of North and South America. However, many Book of Mormon scholars, particularly in recent decades, believe the text itself favors a less expansive (“limited”) geographical setting for most of the Book of Mormon events. The two most notable proposed limited geography models are based in Mesoamerica, and in the Great Lakes area of North America.
The largest of the churches embracing the Book of Mormon—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)—has not endorsed an official position for the geographical setting the Book of Mormon, although some of its leaders have spoken of various possible locations over the years.
The Book of Mormon covers a vast time span, though there’s no universally accepted timeframe due to ongoing debate about its historical accuracy. Here’s a breakdown of the timeframe presented in the text itself:
• Arrival of Lehi: The Book of Mormon begins with the prophet Lehi leaving Jerusalem around 600 BC. • Later Events: The narrative then unfolds over centuries, detailing the journeys, wars, and societal changes of various groups descended from Lehi. The exact duration isn’t explicitly stated, but the events likely span several hundred years. • Final Events: The concluding portion of the book focuses on the visit of Jesus Christ to the Americas after his resurrection, estimated to be around 33 AD. • Total Timeframe (based on Book of Mormon): Roughly 600 BC to 421 AD, potentially encompassing over 1,000 years.
The historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon’s timeline is a subject of ongoing debate. Archaeological evidence hasn’t conclusively corroborated the events or locations described and the Book of Mormon doesn’t provide a clear chronology for some periods.
The Book of Mormon begins with the story of Lehi, a prophet who was preaching repentance in Jerusalem just before the Babylonian captivity. The Lord warned Lehi that his life was in danger and to take his family into the wilderness. Lehi’s family and some others were led to America.
The Book of Mormon, a sacred text for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), tells the story of ancient Israelites who migrated to the Americas. While captivating for its religious narrative, the Book of Mormon also throws down a geographical gauntlet. The text details journeys, battles, and specific locations, sparking fervent debate about where these events unfolded. An estimated 100 theories have been proposed, placing the Book of Mormon across the vast expanse of the Americas, from the jungles of Central America to the plains of North America. Dedicated members and apologists have put forth a variety of compelling arguments, fueled by a desire to connect the dots between scripture and physical space. In this blog post, we’ll delve into the captivating world of Book of Mormon geography, exploring the multitude of theories, the motivations behind them, and the ongoing quest to map out this sacred narrative.
The Book of Mormon provides limited, often ambiguous, details regarding the specific locations of events and civilizations described within its pages. While we read of landscapes, rivers, and landmarks, these references are often vague and open to interpretation. This ambiguity leaves ample room for speculation and allows a wide range of theories to emerge.
From the jungles of Mesoamerica to the plains of the American Midwest, the range of proposed locations for Book of Mormon events is as vast and varied as the landscapes themselves. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse any specific geographical model, its apologists and scholars have contributed numerous theories over the years, each seeking to reconcile the text with known archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence. Proponents advocate for a hemispheric interpretation, positing that the events of the Book of Mormon took place across North and South America, while others focus on more localized settings, such as the heartland of the United States or the ancient civilizations of Central America.
Despite the abundance of theories, the quest to pinpoint Book of Mormon locations faces numerous challenges and controversies. The lack of archaeological evidence directly supporting Book of Mormon events, combined with discrepancies between the text and known historical timelines, complicates efforts to identify specific sites mentioned in the narrative. Additionally, the shifting nature of geographical landscapes over millennia further complicates the search, as natural features may have changed or disappeared entirely since ancient times. Moreover, debates over the historicity of the Book of Mormon itself add another layer of complexity to the discussion, with critics questioning the validity of its accounts and proponents defending its authenticity.
The Book of Mormon geography debate is a complex issue with passionate arguments on both sides. This blog post aims to explore and present documented viewpoints from dedicated members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), as well as perspectives from scholars and archaeologists outside the faith. Our goal is to illuminate the various theories and their reasoning, allowing you to arrive at your conclusions about the Book of Mormon’s geographical content.
The Maya seem to have developed alongside, and traded ideas with, the neighboring Olmec civilization, which some consider one of the most influential societies of ancient times. Researchers believe this is when the Maya adopted the ritual complexes for which they would become famous. Like the Olmec, the Maya soon focused on building cities around their ritual areas. These advancements in agriculture and urban development are now known as the Maya’s Preclassic period between 1500 and 200 B.C. (This massive Mayan ceremonial complex was discovered in “plain sight.”)
As the Maya built out their society even further, they laid the foundations for complex trade networks, advanced irrigation, water purification and farming techniques, warfare, sports, writing, and a complex calendar.
LDS Evidence Central: While a wide variety of temple structures were present in ancient Mesoamerica, some of them (including examples that date to Book of Mormon times) correspond generally to the pattern of the temple of Solomon, featuring a building set on a raised structure with an outer and inner room fronted by two free-standing pillars. While these findings do not allow us to identify any of these temples as Nephite temples, they show that the type of temple Nephi claimed his people constructed would not have been out of place in ancient Mesoamerica.
There is no substantial evidence outside of LDS circles to support the historical account of a group of ancient Israelites fleeing Jerusalem before the Babylonian captivity and journeying to the Americas to establish a new civilization. The idea of a direct connection between the ancient Israelites and the Maya civilization is not supported by mainstream archaeological or historical research.
Archaeologists and historians study the origins and development of the Maya civilization through various methods, including analysis of archaeological sites, artifacts, inscriptions, and other forms of evidence. The prevailing scholarly consensus is that the Maya civilization emerged independently in Mesoamerica and developed over thousands of years through interactions with neighboring cultures and societies, such as the Olmec civilization.
While there may be some parallels between aspects of Maya culture and certain narratives found in the Book of Mormon, such as references to urban development, agriculture, warfare, and complex calendars, these similarities do not constitute direct evidence of a historical connection between the two. Theories proposing such connections are largely based on religious interpretations rather than empirical evidence and are not widely accepted within the academic community.
In summary, while the Maya civilization is a fascinating subject of study with rich cultural and historical significance, there is currently no credible evidence from outside LDS circles to support the claim of a direct relationship between the Maya and the ancient Israelites described in the Book of Mormon.
A common criticism is that LDS associate the Nephites and/or Lamanites with the Maya, and the Jaredite civilization with the Olmec. It is easy, based upon typical artistic representations used by the Church, to see why LDS typically associate the Nephites or Lamanites with the Maya. The assumption by critics that LDS associate the Nephites and the Lamanites with “the Maya” is an oversimplification of the facts. Most Church members view “the Maya” as a single, homogeneous group of people whom they associate with the magnificent ruins of the Classic Mayan civilization found in Mesoamerica. However, the Classic period occurs after Book of Mormon times. LDS research has focused on identifying the characteristics of the Preclassic Mayan culture, which does indeed cover the time period addressed by the Book of Mormon.
The Lamanites are one of the four peoples (along with the Jaredites, the Mulekites, and the Nephites) described as having settled in the ancient Americas in the Book of Mormon. The Lamanites begin as wicked rivals to the more righteous Nephites, but when the Nephite civilization became decadent, it lost divine favor and was destroyed by the Lamanites. Latter Day Saints have historically associated Lamanites with present-day Native American cultures.
It cannot be stated whether a particular group, whether Nephite or Lamanite, inhabited a specific city, although there has certainly been speculation. For example, Joseph Smith once speculated that Palenque was a Nephite city. In most cases, the original names of the cities themselves are not known—they are instead known by the names assigned to them by explorers. Ironically, one of the ancient cities for which the original name is known is the city of Laman’ayin (Mayan for “submerged crocodile”). This city, usually called “Lamani,” is located in Belize and is believed by archaeologists to have been inhabited as early as 1500 B.C. The city would have been inhabited during the period of time described by the Book of Mormon. While the name of this city is an interesting coincidence, there is not sufficient information given in the Book of Mormon to allow one to assume that it correlates with any city mentioned therein.
Latter-day Saint research of the Maya concentrates on the Preclassic period, since this is the time period which correlates with most of the Book of Mormon record. Therefore, the simple argument that the “Maya” do not correlate with the time period covered by the Book of Mormon is an inaccurate statement. The research of the Preclassic Maya becomes complicated, however, since the constructions of the Classic period were built upon the rubble of those constructed during the Preclassic period. In essence, to research the Preclassic Maya, you have to dig through the evidence of the Classic Maya. An example of this is the lowland Mamom culture (700 B.C. to 400 B.C.), Dr. Coe notes,
“The lowland Maya almost always built their temples over older ones, so that in the course of centuries the earliest constructions would eventually come to be deeply buried within the towering accretions of Classic period rubble and plaster. Consequently, to prospect for Mamom temples in one of the large sites would be extremely costly in time and labor.[3]:54”
Needless to say, this complicates the task tremendously if one is attempting to uncover evidence of the earlier cultures. In addition, the hot and humid Mesoamerican climate is not conducive to the preservation of artifacts or human remains.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson was one of the most noted defenders of Book of Mormon archaeology. Mr. Ferguson planned the New World Archaeological Foundation which he hoped would prove The Book of Mormon through archaeological research. The Mormon Church granted hundreds of thousands of dollars to this organization, but in the end, Thomas Stuart Ferguson admitted that although the Foundation made some important contributions to New World archaeology, all his work with regard to the Book of Mormon was in vain. He admitted, in fact, that he had wasted twenty-five years of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon.
As early as 1953, the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF) received funding from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after Thomas Ferguson approached church leaders about finding Book of Mormon archeological evidence. Ferguson had a passion for looking for archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon and he reminded the church leadership that discovering Book of Mormon artifacts would assist in the church’s missionary program.
After years of studying maps, Mormon scripture, and Spanish chronicles, Ferguson had concluded that the Book of Mormon took place around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the narrowest part of Mexico. He had come to the jungles of Campeche, northeast of the isthmus, to find proof.
Ferguson wrote, “It is the only Church on the face of the earth which can be subjected to this kind of investigation and checking.” And in another, to the LDS leadership, he declared, “The Book of Mormon is either fake or fact. If fake, the [ancient] cities described in it are non-existent. If fact—as we know it to be—the cities will be there.”
After many years of searching for artifacts and other evidence, he came up empty-handed.In 1975, he submitted a paper to a symposium about Book of Mormon geography outlining the failure of archaeologists to find Old World plants, animals, metals, and scripts in Mesoamerica. “The real implication of the paper,” he wrote in a letter the following year, “is that you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere—because it is fictional.”
Pipewrench Magazine (no longer published) Mormonism has left its mark on Mesoamerican scholarship — but not always to the benefit of the scholarship, or the Mesoamericans.
For Mormons, the twin concepts of testimony (declaring a truth to other people) and personal revelation (a communication from god to man) present an interesting paradox. Although Mormons are generally expected to adhere to the church’s views and perspectives, each individual is also encouraged to receive personal revelation for their life from God, in much the same way that the church’s founder Joseph Smith did — although these personal revelations are still expected to adhere to church teachings and reinforce accepted doctrine. Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or COJCOLDS) has staunchly maintained a position of neutrality regarding Book of Mormon geography (with the exception of Joseph Smith’s early belief that it occurred in Central America or the Midwest), members of the church have, until recently, been allowed to decide for themselves where they believe the Book of Mormon took place.
This means that there are as many theories as there are members interested in the theories, and it means each person’s theory is as valid as the next as long as they believe they have received confirmation from God — a key Mormon tenet is that testimony is irrefutable if it has divine confirmation. Unfortunately, many of these personal theories distort archaeological evidence, particularly those from the 20th century.
Most of the Mormon and Mormon-adjacent scholars I’ve met in recent years succeed in recognizing their biases, and keep them from influencing their work. Even the COJCOLDS has begun to distance itself from previous theories — it no longer funds the NWAF. However, in a world where pseudo-archaeological television shows traffic in unsubstantiated and sensationalized claims for public consumption (like Netflix’s recent Ancient Apocalypse), it is even more important to acknowledge the colonialist and racist motives underlying any theory that suggests the accomplishments of the “New World” belong to anyone other than the indigenous cultures that originally inhabited it. And the best way to correct the record is to respect the documented stories of those who lived them.
Here are some difficulties faced by LDS scholars when seeking proof for the Book of Mormon claims:
1. Ambiguous Geography:
• The lack of a definitive stance on the Book of Mormon’s location creates a vast search area. This makes it challenging to pinpoint archaeological evidence that definitively aligns with the text.
• With so many proposed locations (hundreds by some estimates), the sheer number dilutes the focus of archaeological inquiry.
2. Emphasis on Personal Revelation:
• The Mormon belief in personal revelation can lead to subjective interpretations of evidence. If someone receives a personal confirmation about a specific location, it might lead them to downplay evidence that contradicts their belief.
• This emphasis on personal experience can make it difficult to establish a consensus on objective evidence.
3. Distortion of Archaeological Findings:
• The desire to find proof can lead to misinterpretations of archaeological data. If a theory is strongly held due to personal revelation, scholars might be tempted to overemphasize evidence that seems to fit and downplay evidence that doesn’t.
4. Limited Archaeological Record:
• Regardless of location, the archaeological record from the Book of Mormon’s timeframe in the Americas might be incomplete. This lack of comprehensive data makes it harder to find conclusive proof for specific events or civilizations.
5. Theological vs. Historical Approach:
• The tension between the Book of Mormon’s religious purpose and its potential historical accuracy creates a balancing act. Scholars might struggle to reconcile theological interpretations with the demands of objective historical research.
Additional Notes:
• The emphasis on testimony being irrefutable if divinely confirmed creates a challenge for establishing objective historical facts.
The combination of these difficulties presents significant hurdles for LDS scholars seeking definitive proof for the Book of Mormon’s claims.
John Sorenson’s new book is a welcome addition to the field of Book of Mormon studies. It is the first serious attempt by a noted scholar trained in the cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica to describe the lifeways of the indigenous inhabitants of that region as they may relate to the artistic, social, and literary heritage of peoples described in New World scripture. Each chapter presents a concise vignette summarizing an aspect of ancient Mesoamerican society: geography, subsistence, societal organization, government, militarism, religion, science, and art.
The real strength of the work, however, is its outstanding compilation of more than five hundred high quality photographs, maps, drawings, and reconstruction paintings that span the major cultural phases of Mesoamerica from ca. 1000 B.C. to modern indigenous groups that conserve traditional social practices whose roots lie in the pre-Columbian past. These carefully selected images bring to life the pre-Columbian world in a way otherwise impossible with a written text. Each illustration is well attributed and referenced with regard to date and provenance. This alone will make the book an indispensable tool for further research.
Analysis of John Sorenson’s Book: Photos, Maps, and Drawings:
The paragraph highlights the extensive visual aids in Sorenson’s book as its “real strength.” Let’s analyze their potential relevance and limitations in supporting the Book of Mormon events:
Strengths:
• Contextualization: High-quality photos, maps, and drawings can provide valuable context for understanding Mesoamerican culture during the proposed timeframe of the Book of Mormon. • Visual Representation: These visuals can bring the pre-Columbian world to life for readers unfamiliar with Mesoamerican archaeology. • Comparative Analysis: Images of artifacts, architecture, and cultural practices can be compared to descriptions in the Book of Mormon, potentially revealing similarities or differences.
Limitations:
• Selective Representation: The selection and presentation of visuals can be subjective. Images that don’t align with the Book of Mormon narrative might be omitted. • Lack of Direct Evidence: The visuals themselves don’t directly prove the events or locations described in the Book of Mormon. They can only suggest potential connections. • Dating Challenges: Dating archaeological finds can be imprecise, creating uncertainty about whether they align with the Book of Mormon’s timeline. • Modern Practices: Including images of modern indigenous groups might be a stretch. Cultural practices can evolve, and their connection to the Book of Mormon remains debatable.
Overall:
While the visuals can be a valuable resource for understanding Mesoamerican culture, they don’t offer definitive proof of the Book of Mormon’s historical accuracy. They are best viewed as a tool for contextualization and comparison, not as conclusive evidence.
Mesoamerican architecture boasts two impressive features: colossal stone heads and pyramid temples. Among the most ancient pyramid temples is the La Venta pyramid, located near Tabasco in the Gulf of Mexico. According to Britannica, historians estimate its construction occurred between 1000 and 400 BC. La Venta exemplifies the stepped pyramid design common in the region.
After separating themselves from the Lamanites, Nephi recorded that he and his people constructed a temple “after the manner of the temple of Solomon” though on a much less ambitious scale (2 Nephi 5:16). A separate evidence summary discusses several examples of Israelite temples built outside of Jerusalem which were generally patterned after the form of Solomon’s temple. John Sorenson has shown that many Mesoamerican temples were also built in pre-Columbian times, some of which correspond in general form to that built by Solomon.
When the Spanish attempted to describe Aztec temples, they specifically compared them to the biblical temple of Solomon. Friar Diego Duran related how Motecuhzoma I “decided to build the temple of his god Huitzilpochtli, like the great King Solomon who, having made peace in all the land, beloved by all the monarchs of the earth and aided by them, built the temple of Jerusalem.”2 Juan de Torquemada similarly compared the structure of some Aztec temples to that of the Biblical sanctuary: “It is worth noting the division of this [Aztec] temple; because we find that it has an interior room, like that of Solomon, in Jerusalem, in which the room was not entered by anyone but the priests.”
While a wide variety of temple structures were present in ancient Mesoamerica, some of them (including examples which date to Book of Mormon times) correspond generally to the pattern of the temple of Solomon, featuring a building set on a raised structure with an outer and inner room fronted by two free standing pillars. Such examples are known from discoveries made since the publication of the Book of Mormon and would not have been known to Joseph Smith and his contemporaries. While these findings do not allow us to identify any of these temples as Nephite temples, they show that the type of temple Nephi claimed his people constructed would not have been out of place in ancient Mesoamerica.
Here are some arguments that counter the relevancy of the view that Mesoamerican temples resembling Solomon’s Temple support the Book of Mormon:
1. Convergence vs. Evidence:
• The basic layout of a raised platform with an inner and outer room isn’t unique to Solomon’s Temple. This basic design appears in various cultures around the world, including Mesopotamia and Egypt, for reasons unrelated to each other. It represents a common-sense approach to creating a sacred space.
2. Lack of Specificity:
• The Book of Mormon’s description of the Nephite temple is very general (“after the manner of the temple of Solomon”). It doesn’t mention specific details like dimensions, materials, or ornamentation that might establish a stronger connection to Solomon’s Temple.
3. Spanish Influence:
• The Spanish chroniclers who compared Aztec temples to Solomon’s Temple weren’t necessarily accurate or unbiased.
• They might have imposed their own Judeo-Christian framework onto unfamiliar structures to make sense of them.
4. Dating Uncertainties:
• Dating Mesoamerican archaeological finds can be imprecise.
• There’s no guarantee that the referenced Mesoamerican temples actually predate the Book of Mormon’s publication (1830) and weren’t built or modified later.
5. Alternative Explanations:
• Cultural exchange and diffusion of ideas can explain some architectural similarities across continents. Trade routes and contact between civilizations could account for shared features without a direct connection to the Israelites.
In Conclusion:
While some Mesoamerican temples share a basic layout with Solomon’s Temple, this doesn’t definitively prove a link to the Book of Mormon. The lack of specific details, potential bias of early sources, and alternative explanations weaken this argument.
Laser technology known as LiDAR digitally removes the forest canopy to reveal ancient ruins below, showing that Maya cities such as Tikal were much larger than ground-based research had suggested.
On February 1, 2018, National Geographic broke a story about some incredible new discoveries in Mesoamerican archaeology using new technology. On subsequent days, the story was picked up by other major media outlets such as BBC, Washington Post, NPR, The New York Times, and Fox.
These reports are based on the recently released findings of the largest LiDAR survey ever attempted for archaeological research by the Fundación Patrimonio Cultural y Natural Maya (PACUNAM), led by Richard Hansen and Fernando Paiz. It mapped 10 tracts totaling 2,100 square kilometers in the Mirador Basin and other areas of northern Guatemala. The surveyed area is less than half the size of Utah County.
According to Parley P. Pratt, early critics dismissed the Book of Mormon, saying, “there were no antiquities in America, no ruined cities, buildings, monuments, inscriptions, mounds, or fortifications, to show the existence of such a people as the Book of Mormon described.”
Based on this new evidence from the Maya lowlands, these grandiose descriptions are not so far-fetched after all. The details in this story support dozens of verses in the Book of Mormon that describe dense populations, sophisticated economies, road networks, large-scale agriculture, intensive land use, disaster-prone landscapes, and prevalent warfare. Even statements about “the whole face of the land” being covered by people and buildings may have been more than just hyperbole.
Here’s why the story about LiDAR technology in Central America offers little support for Book of Mormon historicity, and why Parley P. Pratt’s statement is misleading:
LiDAR and the Book of Mormon:
• Unidentified Civilizations: LiDAR reveals previously unknown structures, but it doesn’t tell us who built them or when. The Book of Mormon mentions specific civilizations (Nephites, Lamanites), and LiDAR doesn’t connect these finds to them. • Mesoamerica vs. Book of Mormon Setting: The Book of Mormon doesn’t definitively limit its setting to Mesoamerica. LiDAR discoveries in Guatemala don’t rule out other potential locations. • Focus on Large Structures: LiDAR excels at finding large-scale structures, but the Book of Mormon also describes smaller settlements. LiDAR might miss these entirely.
Parley P. Pratt’s Misleading Statement:
• Early America Had Antiquities: Even in Pratt’s time, archaeologists were aware of pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas. Mounds, cities, and artifacts were known, though not as extensively as today. • Book of Mormon Specificity: The Book of Mormon goes beyond basic features like cities and agriculture. It mentions specific materials, technologies, and writing systems not yet definitively linked to archaeological finds.
Overall:
While LiDAR is a valuable tool for archaeologists, its discoveries in Mesoamerica don’t definitively support the Book of Mormon’s historical accuracy. The lack of specific identification of civilizations and the broader potential setting of the Book of Mormon weaken the connection. Additionally, Parley P. Pratt’s statement misrepresents the knowledge of pre-Columbian America in his time.
Painting which hung in the Salt Lake Temple of Mormon founder Joseph Smith preaching to Native Americans in Illinois.
The Book of Mormon describes the migration of three colonies from the Old World to the New. Two of these were small Israelite groups that migrated to an American land of promise around 600 BC. Many Latter-day Saint scholars interpret the Book of Mormon as a record of events that occurred in a relatively restricted region of ancient Mesoamerica. During and after those events, according to this view, peoples from this area—including some descendants of Book of Mormon peoples—may have spread to other parts of the Americas, carrying with them some elements of Mesoamerican culture. These Latter-day Saint scholars also believe that pre-Columbian populations of the Americas include within their ancestry many groups other than those small colonies mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
A recent critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has complained that “some LDS scholars, especially those associated with FARMS, . . . reinterpret Lamanite identity in the later part of the twentieth century” and thereby “implicitly reject long-standing popular Mormon beliefs, including those held by Joseph Smith, about Lamanites being the ancestors of today’s American Indians.” Of course, popular beliefs, longstanding or otherwise, are not crucial to the foundations of the faith of Latter-day Saints, which are based on revealed scripture. In regard to the ancestry of the Amerindians, the central issue for Latter-day Saints is not whether Native Americans are in some measure descendants of Israel but whether their ancestors are exclusively Israelite. Latter-day scriptures speak of a remnant of those people described in the Book of Mormon and of their prophetic destiny, suggesting that this remnant may be found among Native American groups known perhaps to Joseph Smith and others.
The most accepted historical and archaeological record points to several key aspects regarding the origin of America’s Native American peoples:
• Migration from Asia: Overwhelming genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that the ancestors of Native Americans migrated from Siberia across a land bridge (Bering Land Bridge) that existed between Siberia and Alaska during the last Ice Age, roughly 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. • Multiple Waves of Migration: It wasn’t a single mass migration, but likely multiple waves of people over time. • Diversification and Adaptation: As these populations spread throughout the Americas, they adapted to various environments, leading to the development of distinct cultures and languages. • Long-Term Presence: Archaeological evidence shows continuous human presence in the Americas for thousands of years, with complex societies emerging in different regions.
Supporting Evidence:
• Genetics: Studies of DNA from ancient remains and modern Native American populations show clear connections to Asian populations. • Archaeology: Tools, weapons, and other artifacts found across the Americas share technological similarities with those found in Siberia, suggesting a common ancestry. • Linguistics: While there’s a great diversity of Native American languages, some linguists identify possible connections between them and certain Asian language families.
Unresolved Questions:
• Exact Timing and Routes: The precise timing and specific routes of migration are still being debated and refined with new discoveries.
• The Pre-Clovis Debate revolves around archaeological evidence that some interpret as suggesting human presence in the Americas before the generally accepted timeframe of 15,000 to 20,000 years ago.
The discussion on Book of Mormon geography was getting heated. Scholars gathered in Provo, Utah, to discuss their theories about where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place. Some placed the Nephite capital city Zarahemla in Mesoamerica, others in South America. Others argued for a setting in the American heartland.
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism described how “Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography.”
But the lack of an official position hasn’t squelched interest. The subject attracts highly trained archaeologists and scholars and informed — and not-so-informed — amateurs and enthusiasts. Books, lectures and even Book of Mormon lands tours abound.
But something is rotten in Zarahemla — wherever it may be.
In the middle of what could be a fun and intellectually exciting pursuit similar to archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann’s famous search for the lost city of Troy, there are accusations of disloyalty tantamount to apostasy.
In one corner is the more-established idea of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. This theory places the events of the book in a limited geographic setting that is about the same size as ancient Israel. The location is in southern Mexico and Guatemala. The person most often associated with this theory is John L. Sorenson, a retired professor of anthropology at BYU, and the author of “An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon” and a series of articles on Book of Mormon geography that ran in the Ensign magazine in September and October 1984. A new book, tentatively titled “Mormon’s Codex,” is in the process of being published.
In the other corner is the challenger, a new theory that places Book of Mormon events in a North American “heartland” setting. Like the Mesoamerican theory, it also is limited in area — but not quite as limited. Its symbolic head is Rod L. Meldrum and, more recently, Bruce H. Porter. Meldrum and Porter are the co-authors of the book “Prophecies and Promises,” which promotes the heartland setting.
It wouldn’t be hard to predict that some friction might come about from competing theories — that healthy sparring would occur with arguments and counter-arguments. But it has gone beyond that.
The source of the animosity comes from the heartland theory’s mantra: “Joseph knew.”
Joseph Smith made several statements that can be interpreted to have geographic implications. Proponents of a North American setting see these statements as authoritative and based in revelation. Mesoamerican theorists think that Joseph Smith’s ideas about geography expanded over time and included approval of at least some connection to Central America.
To the heartlander, Joseph’s knowledge about Book of Mormon locations is seen as proof of his divine calling and a testament to his being the chosen translator/expert of the book. Joseph didn’t just know; he knew everything. This position, however, leaves little room for other opinions — or for charity.
“The way I look at Joseph Smith’s statements is that he either knew or he didn’t know. If he knew, he knew by revelation. And if he didn’t know, you’ve got to ask yourself why he said the things that he said,” Porter said. “If he didn’t know, was he trying to show off? If he really didn’t know, why was he telling people?
“My feeling is that Joseph Smith did not lie,” Porter said.
If you don’t agree with this line of reasoning, by implication, you think that Joseph lied.
“My authority is Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon,” Porter said. “Most of your Mesoamerican theorists, their authority is John Sorenson and Matthew Roper. They picked those as their authority at the neglect of Joseph Smith.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) official stance of neutrality on Book of Mormon geography hasn’t stopped members from passionately pursuing their own theories. This disconnect between official policy and member enthusiasm can lead to frustration.
The article suggests that both sides rely heavily on interpreting statements by Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS Church, to support their geographical arguments. This can lead to selective interpretation and a sense of one theory being the only “true” interpretation.
There exists a lack of charitable understanding between proponents of different theories. The “Joseph knew” mantra implies that those who disagree are questioning Joseph Smith’s prophetic abilities. There is also tension between viewing Joseph Smith’s statements as the ultimate authority and giving weight to scholarly research by archaeologists like John Sorenson and Matthew Roper.
While there is room for passionate exploration, there is also evidence of divisions and a lack of respectful discourse within the LDS community.
Differing opinions abound with each new shovel thrust into the ground.
BIG THINK: owned by Freethink Media, Inc. Mormon geography: Why some Latter-day Saints are digging for a “lost city” in southeastern Iowa.
Excavation at the purported site of the Zarahemla Temple. Anyone with any serious archaeological background will immediately recognize this effort for what it is: an undisciplined treasure hunt. This effort begins by tunneling down by hand in the excavation blocks, but even eventually impatience wins here also and mechanical excavation equipment is desperately used to blow a big crater into the earth. And still there are no walls. And so the dirt is pushed back in the holes and everyone goes home.
Where is Zarahemla? Mormons, otherwise known as followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have been looking for that lost city for decades. Some think they are now close to finding it in southeastern Iowa. Using LIDAR (which is like radar but uses a different wavelength), the Heartland Research Group (HRG) has been scanning 100 acres of farmland outside Montrose, a small town on the bank of the Mississippi.
The trouble — topographical, theological, and otherwise — begins when you start to connect any of the locations mentioned in the book with the actual map of the Americas, using the scant geographic clues provided and then trying to make the rest of the puzzle fit. The results are, to say the least, quite divergent.
Is there an ancient Mormon metropolis buried beneath the soil of southeastern Iowa? It is hard to prove a negative. So, perhaps. However, for Mormon place-finders in the Americas, exhilaration followed by disappointment has been about as constant as it is for those looking for the philosopher’s stone.
But still, they go on — because if they can prove the existence of Zarahemla, the Book of Mormon itself will have been proven true. What motivates the diggers for a truth that may not be there? Faith. Or to translate that in more scientific terms: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The foundational text of the Church of Latter-day Saints is rife with the names of those peoples, their cities, and other places of significance; but none has yet been positively identified by objective archaeological research.
Why?Perhaps because of the centuries that have elapsed between the demise of the civilization described in the book and the book’s rediscovery and translation by Joseph Smith — an ocean of time vast enough to erase virtually every trace of that past. Or perhaps the book’s inspiration was less than angelic (Mark Twain called it “a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament,” among other things), and its people and places were entirely made up.
Early Latter-day Saints (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in the 1820s and 1830s held a core belief that Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites, a group described in the Book of Mormon. This concept was central to their early missionary efforts, particularly those focused on Missouri. In fact, a critical purpose of the Book of Mormon, as understood at the time, was the conversion of the Lamanites, considered a precondition for Christ’s imminent return.
Imagine transporting a believer from that era to the present. Hearing the Church’s current stance – that the Book of Mormon’s geographical location and Lamanite lineage hold little significance – they would likely perceive a significant shift in doctrine.
All nineteenth-century writers on Book of Mormon geography apparently assumed that the place where Joseph Smith found the plates and the hill where the Nephites met their destruction were identical. Aside from this one point, however, the diversity of nineteenth-century opinion is striking. Yet this fact has not been fully appreciated by students of the Book of Mormon or their critics. Did Lehi land in Chile? Cobiga, Bolivia? Lima, Peru? A little south of the Isthmus of Darien? Or “on the Pacific side of the southern part of Central America”? Where was the land of Nephi? Was it in South America? In Ecuador? Bolivia? Venezuela? Or was it in Central America? Guatemala? Was the land of Zarahemla in Colombia in South America? Further north in Honduras? Or in Mexico? Was the river Sidon the Magdalena in Colombia? Or was it the Usumacinta in Mexico? Was the narrow neck of land in Panama, at the Isthmus of Darien? By the Bay of Honduras? Or was it at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico? Was the land of Desolation near the Isthmus of Darien? Honduras? Yucatán? Or in the United States between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains? Were the Jaredites destroyed at the hill in New York or in Honduras in Central America? It is worth emphasizing that these points of disagreement are not over peripheral or insignificant matters but over key elements that are central to any discussion of Book of Mormon geography. The fact that there was such wide disagreement during the first fifty years after the publication of the Book of Mormon strongly suggests that no one view prevailed. It also indicates the absence of an authoritative stance on the subject.
Tell us more about that Deoxyribonucleic Acid Molecule (DNA).
Genetic studies indicate that Native American populations across the Americas, from Canada to the southern tip of Chile, originated from at least three distinct migrations. The majority of these populations share ancestry with a single group of early migrants who crossed the Bering Land Bridge, a landmass connecting Asia and America during the Ice Age, over 15,000 years ago.
In a recent article, “Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics,” published in the anthology American Apocrypha, I summarized existing genetic research into Native American origins, concluding, “While DNA shows that ultimately all human populations are closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and indigenous Americans, much less within the time frame suggested by the Book of Mormon.” Instead of lending support to an Israelite origin as posited by Mormon scripture, genetic data have confirmed already existing archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological data, pointing to migrations from Asia as “the primary source of American Indian origins.”
Researchers associated with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) have rejected hemispheric models of the Book of Mormon but still express “confidence in an Israelite genetic presence in Central America and perhaps as far away as Arizona to the north and Colombia to the south.” I have found no genetic research to support this expectation. Instead, studies of mtDNA (even ancient mtDNA), Y-chromosomes, and protein polymorphisms in Central American indigenous populations indicate the same Asian origins found elsewhere in the Americas. Given overwhelming genetic evidence against the Book of Mormon’s historical claims, I advised in my article “against confusing a spiritual witness [of the Book of Mormon] with scientific evidence.” As Mormons, it appears, we tend to place far too much trust in prayer as a valid means of historical and scientific investigation. Our tendency to confuse our answers to private prayers with valid historical and scientific information has produced a classic science vs. religion conflict, comparable to evolution vs. creationism.
A plausible conclusion.
Based on archaeological and historical evidence, most archaeologists and historians view the Book of Mormon’s accuracy as a historical record as unlikely. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
Limited Archaeological Support:
• Extensive archaeological research hasn’t unearthed definitive evidence for the specific civilizations, locations, or writing systems described in the Book of Mormon.
• While Mesoamerica has some cultural similarities (warfare, temple structures), these might be due to general patterns of human civilization rather than a direct connection to the Book of Mormon narrative.
Anachronisms:
• The Book of Mormon mentions technologies and animals not present in the Americas during the time period it covers (e.g., steel swords, barley).
DNA Inconsistencies:
• Genetic studies of indigenous populations in the Americas haven’t shown a clear connection to the lineages described in the Book of Mormon.
Focus on Personal Revelation:
• The emphasis on personal revelation in Mormon belief can lead to subjective interpretations of evidence that might not align with objective historical findings.
However, it’s important to note:
• Archaeology is a constantly evolving field, and new discoveries can alter interpretations of the past.
• Some LDS scholars argue that the archaeological record is incomplete and might not capture everything mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
• The Book of Mormon holds significant religious and cultural value for Latter-day Saints, regardless of its historical accuracy.
In Conclusion:
While some adherents of the LDS faith may interpret certain archaeological findings or historical records as supporting the Book of Mormon’s authenticity, mainstream scholars and experts often dispute these interpretations. While the Book of Mormon is a cherished scripture for LDS members, the current weight of archaeological and historical evidence suggests a low likelihood of it being a completely accurate historical record.
