{"id":7292,"date":"2026-03-27T18:06:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-28T01:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=7292"},"modified":"2026-03-28T22:39:27","modified_gmt":"2026-03-29T05:39:27","slug":"mapping-the-unknown-exploring-the-archeological-historical-and-geographical-enigma-of-the-book-of-mormon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2026\/03\/27\/mapping-the-unknown-exploring-the-archeological-historical-and-geographical-enigma-of-the-book-of-mormon\/","title":{"rendered":"Mapping the Unknown: Exploring the Archeological, Historical, and Geographical Enigma of the Book of Mormon"},"content":{"rendered":"

600 BC to AD 421: An LDS Narrative Adrift in Uncharted History<\/i><\/p>\n

Wikipedia:
\n<\/span>Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting<\/a><\/b>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
Map of ancient America depicts a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon lands. Click image for a larger view.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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 \u2013 even among Mormon scholars \u2013 regarding the placement of these locations in the known world, other than somewhere in the Americas.<\/p>\n

A popular \u201ctraditional\u201d 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 (\u201climited\u201d) 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.<\/p>\n

The largest of the churches embracing the Book of Mormon\u2014the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)\u2014has 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.<\/p>\n

According to Joseph Smith, an angel named Moroni told him, \u201cthere was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.\u201d According to Latter Day Saint scripture, the narrative in the Book of Mormon came to an end in the ancient land called Cumorah, where Moroni, in 421 AD, deposited storied golden plates prior to his death. Many believers claim the Cumorah in the Book of Mormon narrative to be the same land containing the modern \u201cHill Cumorah\u201d near Joseph Smith\u2019s home in Palmyra, western New York, from whence the gold plates of the Book of Mormon were retrieved. Others view the modern \u201cHill Cumorah\u201d to be distinct from the original and simply to have been named after it, thus adding no information to the question of the location of the lands described in the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Book of Mormon Internal Timeline. <\/b><\/i>The Book of Mormon presents a detailed internal chronology spanning roughly 1,000 years of Nephite\/Lamanite history (plus an embedded Jaredite record covering ~1,600 years), anchored primarily to the departure of the prophet Lehi from Jerusalem. While believers view this as historical, non-LDS scholars treat it as a 19th-century construct without external corroboration.<\/p>\n

Key phases include:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Jaredite Era<\/b><\/i> (~2243 BC to ~600 BC): A separate record (Ether) describes the Jaredites, who migrate from the Tower of Babel era to the Americas around 2200 BC, flourish for millennia, and self-destruct in massive wars by ~600 BC, with one survivor (Coriantumr) briefly encountering Lehi\u2019s people.
\n\u2022 Lehi\u2019s Departure<\/b><\/i> (~600 BC): The main narrative begins as Lehi flees Jerusalem shortly before it falls to Babylon. LDS editions footnote 1 Nephi 2:4 with \u201cabout 600 B.C.,\u201d<\/i> though scholars debate the precise year, ranging from late 605 BC (after Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s first siege) to 588\u2013587 BC (near the city\u2019s final destruction), based on cross-references to biblical kings Zedekiah and Jeremiah.
\n\u2022 Nephite Settlement and Division<\/b><\/i> (~600\u2013200 BC): Lehi\u2019s group arrives in the Americas after ~8 years of wilderness travel. His sons split into Nephites (righteous followers of Nephi) and Lamanites, leading to cycles of wars, prosperity, and prophets over centuries.
\n\u2022 Pre-Christ Wars and Signs<\/b><\/i>(~200 BC\u201333 AD): Increasing conflicts culminate in massive destruction at Christ\u2019s death (33 AD), followed by his post-resurrection ministry among survivors, ushering in a ~200-year golden age of peace.
\n\u2022 Final Nephite Decline<\/b><\/i> (~AD 200\u2013421): Peace fractures; massive wars destroy the Nephites by AD 385 (Mormon dies), with survivor Moroni sealing the record ~AD 421.<\/p>\n

Total Span: <\/b><\/i>Jaredites ~2243 BC\u2013600 BC; Nephites\/Lamanites ~600 BC\u2013421 AD (over 1,000 years).<\/p>\n

The Book of Mormon\u2019s timeline is internally coherent, using multiple calendars (lunar, solar, and reign-based) that align precisely across books. However, its historicity remains hotly contested. No archaeological evidence\u2014such as inscriptions, artifacts, or ruins\u2014directly confirms the named peoples (Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites), cities, or events like Christ\u2019s American ministry.<\/p>\n

Critics highlight anachronisms (e.g., horses, steel, wheat before their American introduction) and mismatches with known Mesoamerican or North American timelines, viewing it as Joseph Smith\u2019s 19th-century invention. LDS apologists argue the record is \u201cconsistent with\u201d<\/i> certain pre-Columbian patterns but acknowledge the absence of \u201csmoking gun\u201d<\/i> proofs, often attributing gaps to limited excavation or translation choices.<\/p>\n

This chronological framework fuels geography debates too: proposed settings (e.g., Mesoamerica) must accommodate massive populations and metallurgy within archaeologically attested periods, yet no consensus exists.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/span><\/h2>\n
\"\"
An AI-generated reproduction gives photo-realistic life to one of Arnold Friberg\u2019s<\/strong><\/a> sketches for Lehi and His people arriving in the Promised Land. Friberg is arguably the most influential artist on Latter-day Saint scriptural art. His depictions of the people and the landscape of the Book of Mormon are well known to Latter-day Saints. Original copyright, 1951, now in possession of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter-day Saint movement, regarded by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an ancient record of Israelites and other peoples who migrated to the Americas. While it presents a sweeping religious narrative of prophets, wars, and civilizations, it also implicitly issues a geographical challenge. Its references to lands, seas, and a \u201cnarrow neck of land\u201d<\/i> invite readers to ask where, if anywhere, these events might fit on a real-world map.<\/p>\n

Since the 19th century, Latter-day Saint leaders, lay members, and critics alike have tried to correlate this narrative with actual American landscapes. Early proposals tended to read the text hemispherically, spreading Book of Mormon events across much of North and South America. Later models narrowed the focus to specific regions such as Mesoamerica or the North American \u201cheartland.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

A Proliferation of Geography Models. <\/b><\/i>Over time, researchers and enthusiasts have proposed a remarkable range of geography models<\/a><\/b><\/span> for the Book of Mormon. Some place its cities and battles in Central or South America, others in the Great Lakes or Mississippi Valley region, and a few even outside the Western Hemisphere, such as the Malay Peninsula. One survey-oriented site notes that over 100 distinct Book of Mormon geography models have been documented, reflecting how fertile\u2014and contested\u2014this interpretive space has become.<\/p>\n

The sheer variety of proposals underscores how much interpretive work is required to move from the Book of Mormon text to a concrete map.<\/p>\n

Ambiguous Clues in the Text. <\/b><\/i>The Book of Mormon does contain internal geography: it distinguishes a \u201cland northward\u201d<\/i> from a \u201cland southward,\u201d<\/i> mentions a \u201cnarrow neck of land,\u201d<\/i> describes seas on multiple sides, and refers to cities, rivers, and wilderness regions in relation to one another. Yet these descriptions are consistently relative and internal to the narrative; the text never names a modern continent, country, or identifiable archaeological culture.<\/p>\n

Because of this, the geography is both detailed and ambiguous. The internal relationships between Book of Mormon locations can be modeled with some rigor, but mapping those relationships onto real-world terrain is highly interpretive and depends on assumptions about distances, directions, climate, and population size. This ambiguity leaves ample room for speculation and helps explain why so many competing models have arisen.<\/p>\n

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on the Book\u2019s geographical setting.<\/b><\/p>\n

Institutional Neutrality and Shifting LDS Views. <\/b><\/i>Officially, the LDS Church maintains a neutral stance on specific geography models. A current Gospel Topics essay states that although members have proposed locations ranging from North to Central and South America, \u201cthe Church\u2019s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.\u201d<\/i> A similar statement in the Saints project emphasizes that the Church does not endorse any particular theory, even while acknowledging that many have been advanced.<\/p>\n

Historically, however, Latter-day Saint thinking has shifted:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 In the 19th and early 20th centuries, many leaders and writers adopted a broad hemispheric view, treating Book of Mormon peoples as ancestors of most or all Indigenous peoples in the Americas, and often linking the \u201cnarrow neck\u201d<\/i> to the Isthmus of Panama.
\n\u2022 In the late 20th century, as linguistic, genetic, and archaeological research complicated these broad claims, LDS scholars increasingly turned toward limited geography models, particularly in Mesoamerica, where complex ancient civilizations are well attested.<\/p>\n

Today, most LDS academic writers who argue for Book of Mormon historicity favor some form of limited geography, though lay members and popular apologists remain divided among multiple models, including Heartland and hemispheric proposals.<\/p>\n

Major Competing Models. <\/b><\/i>Across the spectrum of proposals, a few broad approaches recur:
\n\u2022 Hemispheric interpretations:<\/b><\/i> These models see Book of Mormon lands spread across much of North and South America, often assigning specific cities and events to regions thousands of miles apart. They tend to align with earlier Latter-day Saint assumptions that Book of Mormon peoples populated the bulk of the Western Hemisphere.
\n\u2022 Limited Mesoamerican models:<\/b><\/i> These approaches concentrate the narrative primarily in southern Mexico and Guatemala, interpreting the \u201cnarrow neck of land\u201d<\/i> as a regional isthmus and positing that Book of Mormon groups were one among many ancient populations.
\n\u2022 Heartland and North American models: <\/b><\/i>These proposals place the core events in the interior of the United States\u2014often in the Great Lakes, Mississippi, and Ohio River regions\u2014and appeal to passages about \u201cthis land\u201d<\/i> and prophecies of a New Jerusalem in Missouri as support.<\/p>\n

Other, less mainstream models locate Book of Mormon lands along the west coast of South America, in Baja California, or in far-flung regions such as parts of Asia or Africa. Each framework attempts to harmonize the internal geography of the text with some set of archaeological, linguistic, climatic, and scriptural considerations.<\/p>\n

Archaeology, Historicity, and Ongoing Controversy. <\/b><\/i>The quest to anchor Book of Mormon geography in specific real-world locations faces serious challenges. Professional historians and archaeologists outside the Latter-day Saint tradition overwhelmingly reject the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient record, citing a lack of corroborating evidence for its specific peoples, cities, and events, as well as numerous anachronisms in its narrative. A recent overview notes that relevant archaeological, historical, and scientific data are not consistent with the book functioning as straightforward ancient history.<\/p>\n

Even within believing circles, LDS scholars acknowledge that no city named in the Book of Mormon has been securely identified in the archaeological record, and no inscription using Book of Mormon personal or place names has been found. Apologetic organizations argue that certain cultural and material parallels\u2014such as urbanism, complex societies, or specific technologies\u2014are \u201cconsistent with\u201d<\/i> aspects of the text, but they concede that precise identifications remain elusive. This lack of direct, widely accepted archaeological confirmation keeps the geography debate open and contentious.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the earth itself has changed. Coastlines shift, rivers alter course, and ancient settlements vanish under later construction or environmental transformation. Proponents of various models sometimes invoke these changes to explain why textual locations might be hard to match to modern topography. Critics respond that, even allowing for landscape change, one would still expect clearer, independent evidence for civilizations of the scale and nature described in the Book of Mormon if they had existed within known archaeological horizons.<\/p>\n

Motivations Behind the Mapping. <\/b><\/i>Behind the technical debates lie powerful motivations. For many Latter-day Saints, tying the Book of Mormon to specific locations offers a sense of tangible validation: if one could stand where Zarahemla allegedly stood, or identify the \u201cnarrow neck of land,\u201d<\/i> it might seem to confirm the book\u2019s historicity. Apologists and interested lay members thus devote significant effort to constructing geography models that reconcile the text with known data\u2014or reinterpret the data to fit the text.<\/p>\n

For critics, by contrast, the proliferation of mutually incompatible models is itself evidence against the book\u2019s historical claims. The fact that the same internal descriptions can be mapped onto Mesoamerica, the North American heartland, a hemispheric model, or even distant regions outside the Americas is taken as a sign that the text does not actually encode a discernible, real-world geography. Instead, they argue, the narrative reflects 19th\u2011century American ideas about the ancient New World rather than an ancient record grounded in verifiable locations.<\/p>\n

A Contested and Ongoing Debate. <\/b><\/i>The debate over Book of Mormon geography thus sits at the crossroads of faith, scholarship, and identity. Within the Latter-day Saint community, some members feel that precise geography is ultimately secondary to the book\u2019s spiritual message, while others see the question as central to its claim to be an ancient, historical record. Outside the faith, historians and archaeologists generally treat the Book of Mormon as a 19th\u2011century religious text whose narrative does not align with the established archaeological record of the ancient Americas.<\/p>\n

In this essay, we will survey documented viewpoints from believing Latter-day Saint writers and apologists, as well as assessments from non\u2011LDS scholars and archaeologists. By examining their arguments, evidence, and assumptions, you can weigh the competing claims and reach your own conclusions<\/b> about whether, and how, the geography of the Book of Mormon can be mapped onto the real world.<\/p>\n

The Book of Mormon in Ancient Mesoamerica.<\/span><\/h2>\n

National Geographic: Who were the Maya<\/a><\/b><\/span>?<\/p>\n

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\u2019s Preclassic period between 1500 and 200 B.C. (This massive Mayan ceremonial complex was discovered in \u201cplain sight.\u201d)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
LDS Evidence Central<\/strong><\/a>: 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. Photo: Temple of the Bearded Man at the end of the Great Ball Court for playing pok-ta-pok near Chichen Itza pyramid, Yucatan, Mexico. Mayan civilization temple ruins are an archaeological site. Photo via Adobe Stock. Click image for larger view.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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.<\/p>\n

No Evidence for Israelite Origins of Mesoamerican Civilizations. <\/b><\/i>No credible archaeological, genetic, linguistic, or historical evidence supports the Book of Mormon\u2019s account of Israelite migrants (e.g., Lehi\u2019s family around 600 BC) arriving in the Americas and founding or significantly influencing advanced civilizations there. Mainstream scholars universally regard the Book of Mormon as a 19th-century creation by Joseph Smith, with its narrative clashing against established pre-Columbian records. Claims linking ancient Israelites to the Maya or other Mesoamerican peoples are confined to Latter-day Saint apologetics and lack acceptance in academic circles.<\/p>\n

Maya and Olmec: <\/b><\/i>Indigenous Mesoamerican Developments
\nArchaeologists reconstruct Mesoamerican history through excavations, radiocarbon dating, hieroglyphic decipherment, ceramics analysis, and isotopic studies of human remains. The consensus timeline shows:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Olmec<\/b><\/i> (~1500\u2013400 BC): Emerges in the Gulf Coast lowlands of Mexico (San Lorenzo, La Venta), often called a \u201cmother culture\u201d<\/i> for Mesoamerica due to innovations like colossal stone heads, jade work, and early writing\/ball courts. Recent digs at Ceibal (Guatemala) reveal parallel developments ~1000 BC, suggesting cultural exchange rather than Olmec dominance.
\n\u200b\u2022 Maya Preclassic<\/b><\/i>(~2000 BC\u2013AD 250): Builds on Olmec influences in the Yucatan, highlands, and lowlands; early sites like Cuello (~1000 BC) show independent village growth into urban centers like Tikal and Kaminaljuyu by 300 BC.
\n\u2022 Maya Classic<\/b><\/i>(~AD 250\u2013900): Peak with massive pyramids, stelae inscriptions, Long Count calendars, and city-states; collapses amid drought, warfare, and overpopulation.<\/p>\n

These civilizations arose from local Asian migrations ~15,000+ years ago, with no Old World genetic or cultural influx post-10,000 BC matching Book of Mormon claims.<\/p>\n

Superficial Parallels vs. Empirical Gaps. <\/b><\/i>LDS Mesoamerican proponents highlight \u201cconsistent\u201d<\/i> features like urbanism (e.g., Teotihuacan pyramids resembling Nephite temples), warfare (fortifications, scalping), calendars, and agriculture (maize, beans). They argue Book of Mormon events fit a \u201climited geography\u201d<\/i> in southern Mexico\/Guatemala ~600 BC\u2013AD 400.<\/p>\n

Yet these are broad, superficial overlaps common to many ancient societies\u2014and riddled with anachronisms:<\/h3>\n

The Book of Mormon describes advanced metallurgy that clashes sharply with Mesoamerican realities. It speaks of Nephites crafting steel swords and iron tools as early as 600 BC, yet no evidence of iron smelting or steel production exists in the Americas before European contact\u2014only decorative alloys of gold and copper appear in Olmec or Maya sites. This gap underscores how the text projects 19th-century metalworking onto ancient settings.<\/p>\n

Equally problematic are the animals mentioned throughout the narrative.<\/b><\/i>Horses pull chariots, elephants roam, and cattle are domesticated, but horses had been extinct in the Americas for over 10,000 years by Lehi\u2019s supposed arrival, only reappearing with Spanish conquistadors in 1492. Elephants and cattle similarly find no archaeological trace in pre-Columbian contexts, leaving these references as clear anachronisms.<\/p>\n

Agricultural staples fare no better under scrutiny.<\/b><\/i> The text lists wheat and barley as key crops sustaining massive populations, yet these grains were unknown in ancient Mesoamerica\u2014maize, squash, and beans formed the dietary core, with no wheat pollen or barley remains in excavations.<\/p>\n

Writing systems present another mismatch:<\/b><\/i> The Book of Mormon claims records on \u201creformed Egyptian\u201d<\/i> engraved on metal plates, but Mesoamerican cultures used bark paper codices or stone monuments inscribed with logosyllabic scripts unrelated to Hebrew or Egyptian. No metal books have ever surfaced.<\/p>\n

Finally, the narrative\u2019s scale amplifies the issues. <\/b><\/i>Battles involving millions, complete with Hebrew-derived names and chariots, leave no footprint\u2014no matching inscriptions, population spikes, or wheeled vehicles appear in the record. These elements reflect Joseph Smith\u2019s 1820s worldview far more than verifiable ancient history.<\/p>\n

Genetics further debunks:<\/b><\/i> Native American DNA is overwhelmingly East Asian-derived, with no significant Semitic markers. Linguistic isolation (Maya glyphs unrelated to Hebrew\/Egyptian) and the absence of Book of Mormon place names in inscriptions seal the case.<\/p>\n

LDS Views vs. Mainstream Consensus. <\/b><\/i>Apologists like those at FAIR claim 75% of Book of Mormon items (e.g., cement houses, chiefdoms) find Mesoamerican parallels, urging a \u201cnon-disprovable\u201d<\/i> historicity. But archaeologist Michael Coe notes: \u201cNothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest\u2026 the Book of Mormon\u2026 is a historical document.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

Speculations tying Maya\/Olmec to Israelites echo fringe theories (e.g., African Olmec origins, now retracted as pseudohistory). In sum, while Maya culture fascinates with its astronomy and art, it evolved indigenously\u2014no trace of Lehi\u2019s lost tribes.<\/p>\n

FAIR: Faithful Answers, Informed Response.
\n<\/span>Relationship of the Maya and the Olmec to the Lamanites and the Jaredites<\/a><\/b>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
An AI-generated reproduction brings new life to a painting by Jerry Thompson<\/strong><\/a> depicting Captain Moroni\u2019s soldiers fighting the Lamanites. 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. Click image for larger view.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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 \u201cthe Maya\u201d is an oversimplification of the facts. Most Church members view \u201cthe Maya\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

It cannot be stated whether a particular group, whether Nephite or Lamanite, inhabited a specific city, although there has certainly been speculation.<\/b> 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\u2014they 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\u2019ayin (Mayan for \u201csubmerged crocodile\u201d). This city, usually called \u201cLamani,\u201d 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.<\/b><\/p>\n

Latter-day Saint research of the Maya concentrates on the Preclassic period, since this is the time period that correlates with most of the Book of Mormon record. Therefore, the simple argument that the \u201cMaya\u201d 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,<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

FAIR\u2019s statement accurately reflects current LDS apologetic strategy<\/a><\/b><\/span>\u2014downplaying simple \u201cNephites = Classic Maya \/ Jaredites = Olmec\u201d<\/b><\/i> equations and emphasizing the earlier Preclassic period. However, it does not resolve the core problem: there is still no independent archaeological, linguistic, genetic, or epigraphic evidence linking any Book of Mormon peoples to the Maya (Preclassic or Classic) or to any known Mesoamerican civilization. Even Terryl Givens, a sympathetic LDS scholar, has acknowledged that \u201cno connection has been made between the Book of Mormon and cultures or civilizations in the Western hemisphere,\u201d <\/b><\/i>which FAIR itself cites.<\/p>\n

On \u201cMaya = Nephites\/Lamanites\u201d and LDS Usage. <\/b><\/i>FAIR is right to say that equating \u201cthe Maya\u201d<\/i> wholesale with Nephites or Lamanites is a simplification. The Maya are not a single monolithic culture; they span Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic phases over a vast region and many linguistic groups. It is also fair to note that much LDS scholarly work in the Mesoamerican model has shifted to the Preclassic period (c. 2000 BC\u2013AD 250), because that better overlaps the internal Book of Mormon dates (600 BC\u2013AD 400).<\/p>\n

But this clarification does little to rescue the larger claim<\/a><\/b><\/span>. For nearly a century, LDS leaders, artwork, manuals, and popular writings have strongly suggested that Book of Mormon peoples\u2014especially \u201cLamanites\u201d<\/i>\u2014are the ancestors of modern Native Americans (and often specifically Mesoamericans), reinforcing the very association FAIR now calls an \u201coversimplification.\u201d<\/i> Beginning in the mid-20th century, particularly from the 1950s to 1970s, LDS scholars like John Sorenson began backing away from this direct linkage as DNA studies showed Native American ancestry deriving overwhelmingly from East Asian migrations, with no significant Semitic markers. At the same time, archaeological and linguistic data failed to corroborate large Israelite populations. Shifting the focus from Classic to Preclassic Maya is a tactical refinement, not an answer to the basic evidentiary gap: no Maya inscription, no stela, no mural, no codex, and no securely dated Preclassic site identifies Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites, Mulekites, Zarahemla, or any Book of Mormon figure or place.<\/p>\n

The Lamanai\/Laman\u2019ayin Coincidence. <\/b><\/i>FAIR mentions the Maya site of Lamanai<\/a><\/b><\/span>, noting that its ancient name meant something like \u201csubmerged crocodile\u201d<\/i> and that it was occupied as early as 1500 BC, overlapping Book of Mormon times. That is accurate as far as it goes: Lamanai was a sizable Maya city in what is now Belize, with occupation ranging from roughly 1500 BC through the Postclassic and into Spanish colonial times. The name derivation from Yucatec Maya, laman a\u2019in (\u201csubmerged crocodile\u201d<\/i>), is also standard in the literature.<\/p>\n

However, FAIR\u2019s own text essentially concedes the point critics make: the similarity between \u201cLamanai\u201d<\/i> and \u201cLamanite\u201d<\/i> is purely coincidental, and there is \u201cnot sufficient information\u201d<\/i> in the Book of Mormon to correlate this site with any named city in the record. A single phonetic resemblance, in a different language family, with an unrelated semantic meaning (\u201csubmerged crocodile\u201d<\/i> vs. a personal name \u201cLaman\u201d<\/i>) is precisely the kind of pattern one expects to find by chance across thousands of ancient toponyms<\/a><\/b><\/span>; it is not evidence of Israelite migration. To their credit, FAIR acknowledges this, but then still uses the example to suggest that such \u201ccoincidences\u201d<\/i> might be meaningful\u2014without any supporting data.<\/p>\n

But FAIR\u2019s point about excavation difficulties is increasingly outdated. Recent LiDAR surveys<\/a><\/b><\/span> since 2016\u2014scanning vast jungle regions from aircraft\u2014have pierced the forest canopy to reveal thousands of previously unknown Preclassic structures, roads, and urban networks across Mesoamerica without extensive digging. These scans confirm continuous cultural development from local roots, yet still uncover no trace of Book of Mormon metallurgy, animals, crops, or inscriptions. (The LiDAR technology is discussed in detail later in this essay.)<\/p>\n

Even if the new LiDAR technology did not exist, this is where the apologetic move overreaches. The difficulty of excavation and poor preservation of some materials do not erase the extensive record we do have for Preclassic and Classic Maya and neighboring cultures. Archaeologists have uncovered:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Long, continuous ceramic sequences.
\n\u2022 Elite burials, grave goods, and architecture.
\n\u2022 Hieroglyphic inscriptions and calendrical systems.
\n\u2022 Clear evidence of local origins from Paleoindian and Archaic populations, not intrusive Israelite groups.
\nhttps:\/\/www.nationalgeographic.com\/history\/article\/130425-maya-origins-olmec-pyramid-ceibal-inomata-archaeology-science<\/p>\n

Within this rich record, one would expect at least some sign of a population matching Book of Mormon descriptions: Old World domesticated animals (horses, cattle), Old World grains (wheat, barley), iron or steel tools, Hebrew or Egyptian-derived writing, or even just a handful of personal or place names close enough to be plausible loanwords. None of this appears. Coe himself\u2014whom FAIR likes to quote for descriptive details\u2014famously stated that there is \u201cnot one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing\u201d<\/b><\/i> in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and that \u201cnothing, absolutely nothing\u201d <\/b><\/i>from New World archaeology supports it as ancient history.<\/p>\n

In other words, the buried and humid conditions are real obstacles, but they have not prevented archaeologists from reconstructing complex Preclassic cultural patterns. They simply do not find the Book of Mormon\u2019s distinctive package of Israelite religion, metallurgy, crops, and populations embedded in that record.<\/p>\n

Timelines and Cultural Correlation. <\/b><\/i>FAIR is right that the Preclassic Maya timeline (especially the late Preclassic) overlaps the Book of Mormon\u2019s claimed period. That is precisely why LDS Mesoamerican apologists like John Sorenson<\/a><\/b><\/span> have tried to map Nephite history onto late Preclassic developments: early cities, pyramid-building, and increased social complexity align chronologically with what one would need for a Nephite civilization.<\/p>\n

But overlapping dates and generic traits (cities, temples, warfare) are not enough to establish a historical correlation. Virtually every literate civilization in the ancient world built cities and monuments, practiced agriculture, and fought wars. The question is whether there is specific, independent evidence that the people described<\/a><\/b><\/span> in the Book of Mormon actually existed and interacted with known cultures. On that crucial point, FAIR\u2019s own sources\u2014and the broader scholarly consensus\u2014are clear: there is none.<\/p>\n

So while FAIR is justified in correcting crude caricatures (\u201cLDS think Nephites are just the Classic Maya\u201d<\/i>), the more fundamental criticism stands untouched: regardless of whether one looks at Classic or Preclassic Mesoamerica, no verifiable connection has been established between Maya\/Olmec civilizations and the Nephites, Lamanites, or Jaredites of the Book of Mormon. The apologetic reframing shifts the discussion to an earlier period and to subtler \u201cparallels,\u201d<\/i> but it does not solve the basic evidentiary void.<\/p>\n

Book of Mormon Evidence: <\/span>Money Wasted in Mesoamerica<\/a><\/b>?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
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<\/a><\/b><\/span> trying to prove the Book of Mormon.<\/i><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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 evidence for the Book of Mormon, and he reminded the church leadership that discovering Book of Mormon artifacts would assist in the church\u2019s missionary program.<\/p>\n

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.<\/b><\/p>\n

Ferguson wrote, \u201cIt is the only Church on the face of the earth which can be subjected to this kind of investigation and checking.\u201d And in another, to the LDS leadership, he declared, \u201cThe Book of Mormon is either fake or fact. If fake, the [ancient] cities described in it are non-existent. In fact\u2014as we know it to be\u2014the cities will be there.\u201d<\/p>\n

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. \u201cThe real implication of the paper,\u201d he wrote in a letter the following year, \u201cis that you can\u2019t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere\u2014because it is fictional.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Pipewrench Magazine<\/a><\/b><\/span> (no longer published)
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

Mormonism has left its mark on Mesoamerican scholarship \u2014 but not always to the benefit of the scholarship, or the Mesoamericans.<\/i><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019s founder Joseph Smith did \u2014 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

This means that there are as many theories as there are members interested in the theories, and it means each person\u2019s theory is as valid as the next as long as they believe they have received confirmation from God \u2014 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.<\/b><\/p>\n

Most of the Mormon and Mormon-adjacent scholars I\u2019ve 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 \u2014 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\u2019s recent Ancient Apocalypse), it is even more important to acknowledge the colonialist and racist motives underlying any theory that suggests the accomplishments of the \u201cNew World\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

The author, Catherine Nuckols-Wilde<\/a><\/b><\/span> is an art historian, epigrapher, and Latin Americanist who specializes in the ancient cultures of Mesoamerica, particularly ancient Maya art and writing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here are some difficulties faced by LDS scholars when seeking proof for the Book of Mormon claims:<\/p>\n

1. Ambiguous Geography:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 The lack of a definitive stance on the Book of Mormon\u2019s location creates a vast search area. This makes it challenging to pinpoint archaeological evidence that definitively aligns with the text.
\n\u2022 With so many proposed locations (hundreds by some estimates), the sheer number dilutes the focus of archaeological inquiry.
\n2. Emphasis on Personal Revelation:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 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.
\n\u2022 This emphasis on personal experience can make it difficult to establish a consensus on objective evidence.
\n3. Distortion of Archaeological Findings:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 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\u2019t.
\n4. Limited Archaeological Record:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 Regardless of location, the archaeological record from the Book of Mormon\u2019s timeframe in the Americas might be incomplete. This lack of comprehensive data makes it harder to find conclusive proof for specific events or civilizations.
\n5. Theological vs. Historical Approach:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 The tension between the Book of Mormon\u2019s 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.
\nAdditional Notes:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 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\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n

Brigham Young University Studies
\nvia Internet Archive
\nVisualizing Book of Mormon Life<\/a><\/b><\/span>.<\/p>\n

\n

John Sorenson\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Analysis of John Sorenson\u2019s Book: Photos, Maps, and Drawings:<\/h3>\n

The paragraph highlights the extensive visual aids in Sorenson\u2019s book as its \u201creal strength.\u201d<\/i> Let\u2019s analyze their potential relevance and limitations in supporting the Book of Mormon events:<\/p>\n

Strengths:
\n<\/b><\/i>\u2022 Contextualization:<\/i> High-quality photos, maps, and drawings can provide valuable context for understanding Mesoamerican culture during the proposed timeframe of the Book of Mormon.
\n\u2022 Visual Representation:<\/i> These visuals can bring the pre-Columbian world to life for readers unfamiliar with Mesoamerican archaeology.
\n\u2022 Comparative Analysis:<\/i> Images of artifacts, architecture, and cultural practices can be compared to descriptions in the Book of Mormon, potentially revealing similarities or differences.<\/p>\n

Limitations:
\n<\/b><\/i>\u2022 Selective Representation:<\/i> The selection and presentation of visuals can be subjective. Images that don\u2019t align with the Book of Mormon narrative might be omitted.
\n\u2022 Lack of Direct Evidence:<\/i> The visuals themselves don\u2019t directly prove the events or locations described in the Book of Mormon. They can only suggest potential connections.
\n\u2022 Dating Challenges:<\/i> Dating archaeological finds can be imprecise, creating uncertainty about whether they align with the Book of Mormon\u2019s timeline.
\n\u2022 Modern Practices:<\/i> Including images of modern indigenous groups might be a stretch. Cultural practices can evolve, and their connection to the Book of Mormon remains debatable.<\/p>\n

Overall:
\n<\/b><\/i> While the visuals can be a valuable resource for understanding Mesoamerican culture, they don\u2019t offer definitive proof of the Book of Mormon\u2019s historical accuracy. They are best viewed as a tool for contextualization and comparison, not as conclusive evidence.<\/p>\n

ScriptureCentral.org:
\nBook of Mormon Evidence: Mesoamerican Temples<\/a><\/b><\/span>.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
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. Click image for larger view.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

After separating themselves from the Lamanites, Nephi recorded that he and his people constructed a temple \u201cafter the manner of the temple of Solomon\u201d 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cdecided 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.\u201d2 Juan de Torquemada similarly compared the structure of some Aztec temples to that of the Biblical sanctuary: \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Counterarguments to Mesoamerican Temple Parallels:<\/h3>\n

Here are expanded arguments countering the claim that general similarities between Mesoamerican temples and Solomon\u2019s Temple support Book of Mormon historicity:<\/p>\n

Convergent Architectural Forms:<\/b><\/i> A raised platform with an inner\/outer room and pillars is not uniquely Israelite but a practical, convergent design found worldwide\u2014from Egyptian hypostyle halls and Mesopotamian ziggurats to Southeast Asian and even Polynesian shrines. Mesoamerican pyramids (e.g., at Teotihuacan or Monte Alb\u00e1n) served as multi-purpose ritual platforms for astronomy and blood sacrifice, fundamentally differing from Solomon\u2019s enclosed sanctuary focused on the Ark of the Covenant. This shared \u201cform\u201d<\/i> reflects universal human needs for elevated sacred spaces, not Israelite transmission.<\/p>\n

Vague Book of Mormon Description:<\/b><\/i> Nephi\u2019s temple is described in one brief verse (2 Nephi 5:16) with zero specifics\u2014no dimensions (Solomon\u2019s was 60\u00d720 cubits), materials (cedar, gold overlay), furnishings (molten sea, cherubim), or rites. \u201cAfter the manner of\u201d<\/i> could mean anything from loose inspiration to a 19th-century Protestant\u2019s generic \u201ctemple\u201d<\/i> image. Without diagnostic details matching Mesoamerican finds (e.g., stucco friezes, jade mosaics), the parallel is confirmation bias projecting a silhouette onto unrelated structures.<\/p>\n

Biased Spanish Analogies: <\/b><\/i>Chroniclers like Duran and Torquemada were 16th-century Catholic friars filtering alien polytheistic architecture through a biblical lens to evangelize or comprehend it\u2014much like conquistadors called Inca roads \u201cRoman.\u201d<\/i> Their comparisons served theological agendas, not objective analysis, and postdate the Book of Mormon publication by centuries. Modern archaeology reveals Aztec \u201ctemples\u201d<\/i> (teocalli) as open-air dual shrines for human sacrifice, not enclosed holy-of-holies.<\/p>\n

Chronological and Discovery Issues: <\/b><\/i>While some Preclassic sites (e.g., Uaxactun\u2019s E-VII pyramid, ~300 BC) overlap Book of Mormon times, most cited examples like Monte Alb\u00e1n\u2019s System IV were not excavated or understood until the 1930s\u20131960s (post-1830). Joseph Smith\u2019s era had only vague explorer accounts of surface ruins; detailed stratigraphy confirming Preclassic dates came later. Even so, no temple bears Hebrew names, Israelite ritual objects, or sudden metallurgical shifts expected from Nephite builders.<\/p>\n

Function, Scale, and Missing Distinctives: <\/b><\/i>Mesoamerican temples were stepped pyramids for elite ancestor worship and cosmology, often with multiple rooms for deities\u2014not a single, portable Ark-centered design. No Mesoamerican temple features Solomon\u2019s key markers: bronze pillars Jachin\/Boaz, an altar of burnt offerings, or Levitical purity taboos. The claimed \u201cpost-1830 discoveries\u201d<\/i> (e.g., pillars at La Venta) are stylized stelae or non-freestanding columns, better explained by local Olmec evolution than transoceanic diffusion.<\/p>\n

Population and Cultural Disconnect: <\/b><\/i>Nephite temples allegedly dotted a theocratic covenant society of millions, yet Preclassic Mesoamerica<\/a><\/b><\/span> shows no population boom, Semitic loanwords, or monotheistic disruption amid polytheistic continuity. LiDAR scans (2016+) reveal dense urbanism, but strictly indigenous patterns\u2014no steel tools, horse bones, or \u201creformed Egyptian\u201d<\/i> graffiti amid the maize fields and jaguar cults.<\/p>\n

In sum, generic bipedal architecture proves nothing specific. Like claiming Egyptian pyramids validate the Bible because both have pointy tops, this apologetic cherry-picks silhouettes while ignoring profound functional, material, and evidential mismatches. True corroboration would require names, artifacts, or inscriptions tying these to Zarahemla\u2014not hopeful pattern-matching.<\/p>\n

Book of Mormon Central:
\n<\/span>4 Ways the New Maya Discoveries May Relate to the Book of Mormon<\/a><\/b>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
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. Courtesy Wild Blue Media\/National Geographic<\/a><\/b><\/span>. Click image for larger view.<\/i><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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.<\/p>\n

These reports are based on the recently released findings of the largest LiDAR survey ever attempted for archaeological research by the Fundaci\u00f3n 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.<\/p>\n

According to Parley P. Pratt, early critics dismissed the Book of Mormon, saying, \u201cthere 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

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 \u201cthe whole face of the land\u201d being covered by people and buildings may have been more than just hyperbole.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here\u2019s why the story about LiDAR technology in Central America offers little support for Book of Mormon historicity, and why Parley P. Pratt\u2019s statement is misleading:<\/p>\n

LiDAR and the Book of Mormon:
\n<\/b>\u2022 Unidentified Civilizations:<\/i> LiDAR reveals previously unknown structures, but it doesn\u2019t tell us who built them or when. The Book of Mormon mentions specific civilizations (Nephites, Lamanites), and LiDAR doesn\u2019t connect these finds to them.
\n\u2022 Mesoamerica vs. Book of Mormon Setting:<\/i> The Book of Mormon doesn\u2019t definitively limit its setting to Mesoamerica. LiDAR discoveries in Guatemala don\u2019t rule out other potential locations.
\n\u2022 Focus on Large Structures:<\/i> LiDAR excels at finding large-scale structures, but the Book of Mormon also describes smaller settlements. LiDAR might miss these entirely.<\/p>\n

Parley P. Pratt\u2019s Misleading Statement:
\n<\/b>\u2022 Early America Had Antiquities:<\/i> Even in Pratt\u2019s time, archaeologists were aware of pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas. Mounds, cities, and artifacts were known, though not as extensively as today.
\n\u2022 Book of Mormon Specificity:<\/i> 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.<\/p>\n

Overall:
\n<\/b> While LiDAR is a valuable tool for archaeologists, its discoveries in Mesoamerica don\u2019t definitively support the Book of Mormon\u2019s 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\u2019s statement misrepresents the knowledge of pre-Columbian America in his time.<\/p>\n

Nephi\u2019s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations<\/a><\/b><\/span>.
\nProvo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2003
\nvia Internet Archive<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
An AI-generated illustration brings to life a photo-realistic image, with lively characters, keeping the spirit of the original painting<\/a><\/b><\/span>, which hung in the Salt Lake Temple of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, preaching to Native Americans in Illinois. Click image for a larger view.<\/i><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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\u2014including some descendants of Book of Mormon peoples\u2014may 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.<\/p>\n

A recent critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has complained that \u201csome LDS scholars, especially those associated with FARMS, . . . reinterpret Lamanite identity in the later part of the twentieth century\u201d and thereby \u201cimplicitly reject long-standing popular Mormon beliefs, including those held by Joseph Smith, about Lamanites being the ancestors of today\u2019s American Indians.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The most accepted historical and archaeological record points to several key aspects regarding the origin of America\u2019s Native American peoples:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Migration from Asia: <\/b><\/i>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.
\n\u2022 Multiple Waves of Migration:<\/b><\/i> It wasn\u2019t a single mass migration, but likely multiple waves of people over time.
\n\u2022 Diversification and Adaptation: <\/b><\/i>As these populations spread throughout the Americas, they adapted to various environments, leading to the development of distinct cultures and languages.
\n\u2022 Long-Term Presence: <\/b><\/i>Archaeological evidence shows continuous human presence in the Americas for thousands of years, with complex societies emerging in different regions.<\/p>\n

Supporting Evidence:<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Genetics: <\/b><\/i>Studies of DNA from ancient remains and modern Native American populations show clear connections to Asian populations.
\n\u2022 Archaeology: <\/b><\/i>Tools, weapons, and other artifacts found across the Americas share technological similarities with those found in Siberia, suggesting a common ancestry.
\n\u2022 Linguistics: <\/b><\/i>While there\u2019s a great diversity of Native American languages, some linguists identify possible connections between them and certain Asian language families.<\/p>\n

Unresolved Questions:<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Exact Timing and Routes:<\/b><\/i> The precise timing and specific routes of migration are still being debated and refined with new discoveries.
\n\u2022<\/b><\/i> The Pre-Clovis Debate <\/b>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.<\/p>\n

Deseret News:
\n<\/span>The fight over Book of Mormon geography<\/a><\/b>.
\nMay 27, 2010<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The discussion on Book of Mormon geography was getting heated.<\/b> 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.<\/p>\n

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism described how \u201cChurch leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the lack of an official position hasn\u2019t squelched interest. The subject attracts highly trained archaeologists and scholars and informed \u2014 and not-so-informed \u2014 amateurs and enthusiasts. Books, lectures, and even Book of Mormon lands tours abound.<\/p>\n

But something is rotten in Zarahemla \u2014 wherever it may be.<\/p>\n

In the middle of what could be a fun and intellectually exciting pursuit similar to archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann\u2019s famous search for the lost city of Troy, there are accusations of disloyalty tantamount to apostasy.<\/b><\/p>\n

In one corner<\/b> 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 \u201cAn Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon\u201d 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 \u201cMormon\u2019s Codex,\u201d is in the process of being published.<\/p>\n

In the other corner<\/b> is the challenger, a new theory that places Book of Mormon events in a North American \u201cheartland\u201d setting. Like the Mesoamerican theory, it is also limited in area \u2014 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 \u201cProphecies and Promises,\u201d which promotes the heartland setting.<\/p>\n

It wouldn\u2019t be hard to predict that some friction might come about from competing theories \u2014 that healthy sparring would occur with arguments and counter-arguments. But it has gone beyond that.<\/p>\n

The source of the animosity comes from the heartland theory\u2019s mantra: \u201cJoseph knew.\u201d<\/p>\n

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 on revelation. Mesoamerican theorists think that Joseph Smith\u2019s ideas about geography expanded over time and included approval of at least some connection to Central America.<\/p>\n

To the heartlander, Joseph\u2019s 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\u2019t just know; he knew everything. This position, however, leaves little room for other opinions \u2014 or for charity.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe way I look at Joseph Smith\u2019s statements is that he either knew or he didn\u2019t know. If he knew, he knew by revelation. And if he didn\u2019t know, you\u2019ve got to ask yourself why he said the things that he said,\u201d Porter said. \u201cIf he didn\u2019t know, was he trying to show off? If he really didn\u2019t know, why was he telling people?<\/p>\n

\u201cMy feeling is that Joseph Smith did not lie,\u201d Porter said.<\/p>\n

If you don\u2019t agree with this line of reasoning, by implication, you think that Joseph lied.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy authority is Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon,\u201d Porter said. \u201cMost of your Mesoamerican theorists, their authority is John Sorenson and Matthew Roper. They picked those as their authority at the neglect of Joseph Smith.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) official stance of neutrality on Book of Mormon geography hasn\u2019t stopped members from passionately pursuing their own theories. This disconnect between official policy and member enthusiasm can lead to frustration.<\/p>\n

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 \u201ctrue\u201d<\/i> interpretation.<\/p>\n

There exists a lack of charitable understanding between proponents of different theories. The \u201cJoseph knew\u201d mantra implies that those who disagree are questioning Joseph Smith\u2019s prophetic abilities. There is also tension between viewing Joseph Smith\u2019s statements as the ultimate authority and giving weight to scholarly research by archaeologists like John Sorenson and Matthew Roper.<\/p>\n

While there is room for passionate exploration, there is also evidence of divisions and a lack of respectful discourse within the LDS community.<\/b><\/p>\n

Differing opinions abound with each new shovel thrust into the ground.<\/h3>\n

BIG THINK: owned by Freethink Media, Inc.
\nMormon geography<\/a><\/b><\/span>: Why some Latter-day Saints are digging for a \u201clost city\u201d in southeastern Iowa.<\/i><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
Andy White: \u201cExcavation at the purported site of the Zarahemla Temple<\/a><\/b><\/span>. 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.\u201d (The photo is from Andy White\u2019s blog post, which he obtained from a now-unpublished Facebook post, and does not have a copyright notice.). Click Image for a larger view.<\/i><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The trouble \u2014 topographical, theological, and otherwise \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s stone.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But still, they go on \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/b><\/p>\n

Why? <\/b>Perhaps because of the centuries that have elapsed between the demise of the civilization described in the book and the book\u2019s rediscovery and translation by Joseph Smith, an ocean of time vast enough to erase virtually every trace of that past. Or perhaps the book\u2019s inspiration was less than angelic (Mark Twain called it \u201ca tedious plagiarism of the New Testament,\u201d among other things), and its people and places were entirely made up.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s imminent return.<\/p>\n

Imagine transporting a believer from that era to the present. Hearing the Church\u2019s current stance \u2013 that the Book of Mormon\u2019s geographical location and Lamanite lineage hold little significance \u2013 they would likely perceive a significant shift in doctrine.<\/p>\n

Back to the beginning.<\/h3>\n

Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations<\/a><\/b><\/span>.
\nMaxwell Institute
\nvia Internet Archive<\/p>\n

\n

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.<\/b> 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 \u201con the Pacific side of the southern part of Central America\u201d? 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? Yucat\u00e1n? 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.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Tell us more about that Deoxyribonucleic Acid Molecule (DNA).<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The origin of Native American peoples has been a subject of intense study and debate, particularly in relation to the narratives presented in religious texts like the Book of Mormon by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The Book of Mormon claims that Native Americans descend from the Lamanites, who are described as descendants of ancient Israelites led by Lehi to the Americas around 600 B.C. However, contemporary DNA evidence presents a different narrative, highlighting significant conflicts with these religious claims.<\/p>\n

DNA Evidence on Native American Origins: <\/b><\/i>Extensive genetic research has primarily linked Native American populations to migrations from Asia, specifically through the Bering land bridge theory. This theory posits that ancient humans crossed from Siberia to Alaska during periods when sea levels were lower, allowing for land passage. Mitochondrial DNA studies, which trace maternal lineage, predominantly show that Native Americans share genetic markers with East Asian populations, not Middle Eastern or Israelite ones. This genetic evidence suggests that Native Americans are largely descendants of multiple waves of migration from Asia, dating back thousands of years before the claimed arrival of Lehi\u2019s group.<\/p>\n

Conflict with LDS Claims: <\/b><\/i>The LDS Church has historically taught that Native Americans are direct descendants of the Lamanites, a narrative deeply embedded in the Book of Mormon\u2019s account. However, as genetic science advanced, this claim came under scrutiny:<\/p>\n

2006 Change in Book of Mormon Introduction: <\/b><\/i>The LDS Church made adjustments to the introduction of the Book of Mormon in 2006, changing the assertion from \u201cthe Lamanites\u2026 are the principal ancestors of the American Indians\u201d<\/b><\/i> to \u201cthe Lamanites\u2026 are among the ancestors of the American Indians.\u201d<\/b><\/i> This alteration was likely influenced by mounting genetic evidence that did not support an exclusive Israelite ancestry for all Native Americans.<\/p>\n

LDS Church\u2019s Stance on DNA Studies (2014):<\/b> In December 2014, the LDS Church published an essay titled \u201cBook of Mormon and DNA Studies,\u201d<\/i> acknowledging the complexity of using DNA to affirm or refute the Book of Mormon\u2019s historical narrative. The essay concedes that \u201cnothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples,\u201d<\/i> and even if it were known, there are \u201csound scientific reasons it might remain undetected.\u201d<\/i> It argues that DNA studies alone cannot decisively prove or disprove the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon due to various factors like genetic drift, intermarriage with other groups, and the limitations of current DNA analysis techniques. The essay concludes by cautioning both critics and defenders against using DNA evidence conclusively, emphasizing that \u201cthe evidence is simply inconclusive.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

Thomas W. Murphy and Angelo Baca: <\/span>DNA and the Book of Mormon \u2013 Science Settlers, and Scripture (PDF)<\/a><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published an online essay entitled \u201cBook of Mormon and DNA Studies\u201d on January 31, 2014 that conceded the failure of DNA evidence to provide affirmative support for the scripture\u2019s historical claims. Yet, the essay insists on a priority of scriptural over historical claims and offers possible reasons for the lack of genetic evidence of the ancient migrations from the Near East described in the Book of Mormon. This chapter summarizes the church\u2019s essay, the historical context behind the issues it addresses, and offers constructive and critical analysis of its claims.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Genetic Verdict:<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The DNA evidence available today overwhelmingly supports an Asian origin for Native American peoples, which directly conflicts with the traditional LDS narrative of an Israelite origin via the Lamanites. The LDS Church has responded to these scientific findings by adjusting its claims, acknowledging the complexity of genetic evidence, and maintaining that the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is spiritual rather than historical. This approach allows the Church to uphold its religious teachings while recognizing the limitations and insights provided by modern science. However, this leaves the debate open, with the reconciliation of faith and scientific evidence being a personal journey for believers, critics, and scholars alike.<\/p>\n

Simply Implausible: <\/span>DNA and a Mesoamerican Setting for the Book of Mormon<\/a><\/b>.
\nDialogue Journal<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
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. Image Credit: Emiliano Bellini<\/i><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In a recent article, \u201cLamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics<\/a><\/b><\/span>,\u201d published in the anthology American Apocrypha, I summarized existing genetic research into Native American origins, concluding, \u201cWhile 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.\u201d<\/b>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 \u201cthe primary source of American Indian origins.\u201d<\/p>\n

Researchers associated with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) have rejected hemispheric models of the Book of Mormon but still express \u201cconfidence in an Israelite genetic presence in Central America and perhaps as far away as Arizona to the north and Colombia to the south.\u201d 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\u2019s historical claims, I advised in my article \u201cagainst confusing a spiritual witness [of the Book of Mormon] with scientific evidence.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A plausible conclusion.<\/h2>\n

Based on archaeological and historical evidence, most archaeologists and historians view the Book of Mormon\u2019s accuracy as a historical record as unlikely. Here\u2019s a breakdown of the key points:<\/p>\n

Limited Archaeological Support:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 Extensive archaeological research hasn\u2019t unearthed definitive evidence for the specific civilizations, locations, or writing systems described in the Book of Mormon.
\n\u2022 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.
\nAnachronisms:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 The Book of Mormon mentions technologies and animals not present in the Americas during the time period it covers (e.g., steel swords, barley).
\nDNA Inconsistencies:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 Genetic studies of indigenous populations in the Americas haven\u2019t shown a clear connection to the lineages described in the Book of Mormon.
\nFocus on Personal Revelation:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 The emphasis on personal revelation in Mormon belief can lead to subjective interpretations of evidence that might not align with objective historical findings.
\nHowever, it\u2019s important to note:
\n<\/b><\/i> \u2022 Archaeology is a constantly evolving field, and discoveries can alter interpretations of the past.
\n\u2022 Some LDS scholars argue that the archaeological record is incomplete and might not capture everything mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
\n\u2022 The Book of Mormon holds significant religious and cultural value for Latter-day Saints, regardless of its historical accuracy.<\/p>\n

Finally:<\/b><\/h2>\n

While some Latter-day Saint apologists creatively interpret select Mesoamerican artifacts, temple layouts, or name coincidences as faint echoes of Nephite civilization, mainstream archaeologists and historians\u2014unburdened by doctrinal commitments\u2014overwhelmingly reject these as confirmation bias stretched over unrelated indigenous cultures. After two centuries of digs, LiDAR scans piercing jungle canopies, DNA mapping Asian migrations, and glyph decipherments revealing polytheistic dynasties, not a single inscription, horse bone, steel blade, or Semitic name has surfaced to anchor the Book of Mormon\u2019s sprawling cities, battles of millions, and Israelite transplants in the Americas. What began as 19th-century speculation from Joseph Smith\u2019s upstate New York farmstead endures not through empirical validation, but through faith\u2019s unyielding grip\u2014cherished by believers as divine writ, yet standing as a towering anachronism against the granite bedrock of pre-Columbian history. The evidence does not whisper support; it shouts silence.<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

600 BC to AD 421: An LDS Narrative Adrift in Uncharted History Wikipedia: Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting. 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7303,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[47,44,45],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-book-of-mormon","category-latter-day-saints","category-mormonism"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Gemini_Generated_Image_n696xn696xn696xn.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7292"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7292\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7308,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7292\/revisions\/7308"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}