SOT LitnerStandard of Truth listener companion
Live from the Yucatán
S2E32 · Where Did the Book of Mormon Take Place
0:00 / 1:15:02
14 chapters
← All episodes
Standard of Truth · Season 2 · Episode 32 · 1:15:02

Where Did the Book of Mormon Take Place

In 1844 Joseph Smith announced that "the whole of North and South America is Zion," and the Church today says plainly that it takes no position on where the Book of Mormon happened.

Press play above. The page follows along.
The question ·

Where did the Book of Mormon take place?

Richard

Recording from a trip near the Yucatán after visiting Chichén Itzá, Richard and Gerrit read emails from Jeff and Brandon, which lead to a talk about why Latter-day Saint teaching on salvation is so hard to find anywhere else. Then they ask where the Book of Mormon took place. Gerrit shares Diego de Landa's 16th-century account of Maya traditions, reads the Church's 2019 statement that it takes no position on Book of Mormon geography, and shows how shifting evidence on horses and LIDAR discoveries should keep everyone humble. He weighs Joseph's 1842 Times and Seasons editorial on Central America, Oliver Cowdery's letter on the hill Cumorah and Joseph's 1844 sermon that North and South America are Zion, and lands on the Book of Mormon as a witness of the risen Christ, wherever it happened.

Who comes upJoseph SmithOliver CowderyDiego de LandaW. W. PhelpsWilford WoodruffJohn Lloyd StephensFrederick CatherwoodMartin HarrisRussell M. NelsonAdamEveJesus Christ
Now playing · 0:38

Live from the Yucatán

The hosts record on a trip near the Yucatán after visiting Chichén Itzá.

Chapters

Tap a chapter to jump there

Transcript

113 moments · tap a time to play from there
Intro Welcome to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, where we explore the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gain rare historical insights into how a young farm boy was able to establish a new church and grow it by way of visions, manifestations and miracles.
Gerrit Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Professor Richard LeDuc.
Richard Hello, Gerrit. In this week's podcast, we're coming to you remote from our satellite studio off of the coast of the Yucatán Peninsula.
Gerrit On location.
Richard On location. Bringing, doing the research and bringing the hard truths to you.
Gerrit Yes, the zero dollars that we've made on the podcast has really paid off. And so we decided, actually we had a trip planned to, with our wives to celebrate Becky's birthday was what the point of this was.
Richard Yeah.
Gerrit Initially. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, and then COVID and things got moved around. But you know what? We will not be stopped by bottomless soda packages or steel drums, you know, inviting us out onto the deck. We will push forward.
Richard And we actually were, we were at, we just left yesterday. We went to Chichén Itzá, which was a pretty amazing experience. And so we wanted to use kind of that as a jumping off point to discuss a couple of things. But first we wanted to read a couple of, well, an email, a couple of emails that we received. The first one comes in with just glowing praise. So this comes from Jeff. So have you ever watched one of those teaser videos on social media that are promising something utterly and completely phenomenal that will change your life forever? And you watch and watch and you watch until you know you've watched way too long. And then you watch that long again because you're totally intrigued with the promised outcome. And then you get to the end and realize you've just wasted a big chunk of your life that you'll never recover. Yeah, we've been listening to the Abraham Lincoln podcast, still haven't hit the end yet.
Richard That was, that's great.
Gerrit I think actually that should be in the description. I feel like when people download it, it should-
Richard What is this podcast about? Have you ever wasted a lot of your time expecting something to happen?
Gerrit Have you wanted answers to questions that won't ever be answered by hosts constantly deflecting the issues? Tune in to the Standard of Truth podcast.
Richard Thanks, Jeff. Keep the praise coming in. That was, that's tremendous. We received another email that was also very, was very nice. This comes to us from Brandon. Just let me start off and say how much I enjoy your podcast. I originally heard Dr. Dirkmaat on the Follow Him podcast that my wife and I enjoy very much. You're welcome, John and Hank, for the plug for Follow Him.
Gerrit Yeah, they need it.
Richard They need us desperately plugging their podcast.
Gerrit I'm pretty sure they, I mean, we probably should do a full scale advertising, or they, I worry about their hemorrhaging membership, right, as we speak.
Richard You see in the wild those synergenistic relationships of like the rhinoceros and then the bird that's on top of the rhino looking out, right?
Gerrit Yeah, well, we would be like the bacteria on the bottom of the bird's feet.
Richard That's hilarious. That's literally what I was about to say. Anyway, so enjoy them very much. Follow him, podcast is great. I very much enjoyed the way you laid out the history of the revelations and put them in context. You can probably just skip this next bit. That's what he says, but now we're going to read it. When I heard that you had your own podcast, I immediately tuned in and listened to the entirety of it in a week. Granted, this was last year, so there wasn't quite so many episodes. I've really enjoyed them. I especially like what you said about sources. I've had two brothers leave the church and that have become atheists. Side note, I find it interesting and sad that when they first left, they still believed in God and Christ, but about six to eight months later, I asked them if they had any faith, and the answer was no. And now it's been years, so I don't know how far down they've gone. They are pretty anti, but still respect my belief and faith in Christ and the Restoration. All of the anti things they said or said were actually covered by your podcast.
Richard Things like how there are good sources and bad sources. Things like all of the witnesses supposedly claiming that they were coerced by Joseph Smith and never actually saw the plates or a vision. All of which you answered. I can't express to you how grateful I am for the time and effort you put into this. Back to my question. After Joseph Smith was murdered and there were many offshoot groups, I would love to know more about these groups, but I am most curious about the Strangite branch. From what I gathered, he tried to mimic Joseph's experience, even translated plates. I know the adversary sets up his kingdom the same time as Christ sets up his, and it has always been so. Must have been terribly frustrating for Brigham Young as well. Always, sorry for the long email. Just wanted to say, I think you were both doing an amazing job. So Brother Dirkmaat and Brother LeDuc, sorry if I misspelled any of your names. You did, Brandon, you did. You misspelled mine.
Richard Gerrit, you got right. You nailed his.
Gerrit Well, the name is on the podcast.
Richard It's true.
Gerrit We need to get your name up there.
Richard No, no, no, we should not.
Gerrit I think your wife said we weren't allowed to.
Richard I think it's good on your part to make me want it more by not putting my name anywhere, just knowing that I could be replaced by the drop of a hat.
Gerrit Yeah, I feel like I need you to have the motivation. I feel like I need to have that twinkie dangling on a stick in front of you.
Richard That's right.
Gerrit Is the only way to keep you going.
Richard Looking forward to the next episode, and just so that you know, you have at least one person in Arizona that listens.
Gerrit Yeah, my brother also lives in Arizona, so.
Richard There you go, there's two.
Gerrit Well, he doesn't listen to us. Why would he?
Richard But so that was a very, so first of all, that's a very sincere, kind and nice email. And second of all, that actually is a topic that we do want to discuss in the future. Not in this podcast, obviously. Now it would make sense to read this and then go in to discuss the topic that he brought up. We won't be doing it.
Gerrit Well, that would have mitigated Jeff's criticism. Were we to. Yeah, I feel like in order to read both of those, we needed to say, that's a great topic. We will talk about that at some point in the future, just not now or ever. No, we are planning on it.
Richard The succession crisis and after Joe Smith was.
Gerrit We are planning on it, but you know, on a side note to your commentary about people leaving the church and losing their faith, I, you know, it's a phenomenon that I've noticed as well. And, you know, someone I'm sure could just chalk it up to say, well, they feel so cheated by religion or jaded by it that that's the reason why they no longer believe. Obviously, there's some of that to it. I mean, in every person who leaves the church has different reasons why. They have different motivations, why they have different, you know, culture and life experiences that go into that. But one thing that is if you're a Latter Day Saint living, you know, in the United States or Canada, it actually, I think there are some aspects of of our religion that people really love, even if they have a problem with the church and its organization or its leadership or its stances on certain issues or whatever the reason is. And, you know, and I think that kind of leads to it.
Gerrit I mean, if you're a Latter Day Saint, you believe in essentially universal salvation. You know, you believe that everyone is eventually going to be saved from hell fire, except for this, you know, the very few sons of tradition, right? Everyone's going to go to heaven and that heaven, the lowest kingdom of it is so great and so glorious that you can't comprehend it. Well, well, that's a pretty expansive view of of salvation. No one's going to hell forever anyway. And then secondly, we not only believe that everyone's going to be saved from eternal hell fire, we believe that everyone has an equal opportunity to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. I think that that type of universality of salvation is very difficult to replicate. It's certainly essentially impossible to replicate inside of Christianity.
Gerrit And it's very difficult to replicate in other faith systems as well. And so, you know, that's one of the ways that you can kind of feel an emptiness. I mean, I have talked with multiple people who've left the church and then some have come back and some who haven't. And that is one of the aspects that I think drives a loss of faith entirely, is, you know, you think that you've got a problem with the church because of polygamy or tithing, dollars not being spent the right way or whatever. And you go to your local Baptist church and it's exciting for a little while. But when you start to drill down on the theology and you realize, so anyone who doesn't profess Jesus' name in this world is going to burn in hell forever. No matter whether they live in China, Afghanistan, Indonesia, it doesn't matter. If they don't say Jesus is Lord in this life, they burn in hell forever.
Richard I think there's a couple of things. I've actually given this quite a bit of thought.
Gerrit I feel like you're giving a little bit too much thought to it. This is the reason why we can't put your name up there.
Richard I have just one bad, fast testimony meeting away from leaving the church.
Gerrit Which is the next fast testimony meeting.
Richard Well, no. I've given this a lot of thought too. There are lots of things about this. The salvation piece is a major one for me, but we've actually spent a decent amount of time talking about some of just the logical problems and theological problems that come from God creating everybody out of nothing, the idea that... I was actually having a conversation with my son a couple of weeks ago about... We were listening to somebody, some podcast and the topic of religion came up and they talked about how, well, God never intended us to be here. He intended us to be in the Garden of Eden forever until Adam and Eve particular fruit. This is something that you've addressed several times on the podcast.
Gerrit Standard Christian theology. It's probably one of the most surprising aspects of Christian theology to a Latter-day Saint would be that Christians do not believe, and we've said this before, but just to reiterate, so you don't have to go through all of our unindexed podcasts to find this, that they don't believe that you could not have had reproduction if the fall hadn't occurred. That is a Latter-day Saint belief that comes from the Book of Mormon and obviously other prophets. So Christians hate Adam and Eve. They hate Adam and Eve because Adam and Eve destroyed the world. The world is terrible because of them, but they think had Adam and Eve not, you know, grabbed that apple, we would all be living in a paradise garden of Eden today.
Richard And the problem is, is that the belief also extends that Adam and Eve didn't exist in some premortal way, that they were snapped into existence. And ultimately, then, at that point, you blame Adam and Eve, but at the end of the day, it ultimately is God's fault if he has all power. So when the person said God never intended us to be in this state, well, that's just not possible, right? Because God is all-powerful, God's all-knowing, God knew that these things would have happened and just make a better Adam and Eve. And so there's these kinds of theological and logical issues that is explained by the Restored Gospel, that if I was to fall away, it would also be a very difficult thing for me to accept any other form of Christianity because it doesn't answer those core questions.
Gerrit Yeah, I think that there are questions that many Christians don't even actually ask because it's not part of their theology. So it's just what's accepted, that God created the world perfectly and Adam and Eve fell, whereas Latter-day Saint is believing that God created a world that he knew would become fallen in order for people to grow and progress and to become like God. That the fall isn't just the cosmic disaster, the fall is what God meant to have happen because it was the purpose of the creation of the earth.
Richard And for me, I think that, let's say that I have an issue or a question about a particular thing that I don't understand. I have a strong faith and belief in the Savior and outside of the restored gospel, I just can't get an understanding of him in the way that makes sense any other way. And so anyway, it is an interesting question that this person brings up and something that, you know, I know that is an issue for lots of people to fall away from, like you said.
Gerrit It would be, I mean, obviously, you'd find anecdotal evidence from any person for the reason why they say. You'd take a sociological study to determine all of that. But I mean, I think anecdotally, that does seem to happen a great deal and certainly much more so than someone who leaves a Presbyterian denomination to go to a four-square gospel church, right? And I think that's because they're not giving up so much in theological absolutes that you are when you're a Latter-day Saint. I mean, you're giving up the pre-existence, you're giving up eternal marriage, you're giving up the nature of Jesus in heavenly love. Yep, you're giving up the nature of God and Jesus being separate beings. You're giving up the nature of mankind and who you are and what your ultimate potential is. You're giving up the idea that God is perfectly just, not just we say the word just, like, oh yeah, God's justice, he's just sending 90% of everyone ever lived to burn in hell forever, but he's totally just.
Gerrit I mean, that instead, literally everyone will have an equal chance. And to me, I feel like if you value equality in the eternities, it is hard to find that. Now, I understand the Christian perspective. I mean, from the Christian perspective, all of us are sinners and all of us should burn in hell. So we shouldn't whine about the fact that so many of us go because all of us should go. And Jesus is so merciful, God is so merciful that he saves any of us at all when he shouldn't. I understand that perspective. It just goes back to the question Richard raised, right? If God is all-powerful, then why did God create this plan where almost none of his children could be saved? Because he knew that the moment he created it.
Richard And you can't, because he's all-powerful and all-knowing and he created Adam out of nothing, he ultimately is responsible for all.
Gerrit He could have made him allergic to fruit. That's what he could have made it so that he touched that apple, he broke out in hives, he's reaching for an EpiPen. I mean, he could have done all kinds of things to keep that. Or he could have just made it so that that wasn't an option. God could have made it so that there wasn't an option that one person's actions destroyed the entirety of humanity. He could have. So why didn't he? Well, my argument would be that that's not what happened. So anyway, great. Thanks for your email. Sorry, the difficulties with our loved ones, it's all very difficult. And, you know, great leaders in the church, men and women who have devoted their life to God, have dealt with siblings and children and spouses who no longer share the same faith. And I think you're right to just keep loving them and know that God is merciful. I think that's one of the great aspects of the gospel. So we also, I think, wanted to, the topic we were going to talk about today, aside from the Garden of Eden, is we wanted to talk a little bit about our journeyings in the Yucatán.
Gerrit We went to go, you know, see Chichen Itza and some of the marvelous Mayan ruins there. And as part of our trip, you know, of course, it sparks an interest among the Latter-day Saint about Native American civilizations because of the Book of Mormon. And if you'll recall in a previous podcast, one that's also unindexed and that I can't point you to, we talked about one of the arguments against Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon that's kind of thrown out there, but not in any cohesive way, is the Book View of the Hebrews that was published a few years before the Book of Mormon. The argument in the Book View of the Hebrews outlines the theory that the Native Americans from North and South America are actually descendants from the tribes of Israel. Now, of course, that is certainly what the Book of Mormon is arguing, at least in part.
Gerrit And so, you can see why a modern criticism of the Book of Mormon, and it is a modern criticism, by the way, this is not a criticism that happens in Joseph Smith's time. No one is saying when the Book of Mormon comes out, oh, I know it, he stole it from the View of the Hebrews. That only comes later when people are trying to desperately define an origin of the Book of Mormon. And the reason why they're trying so desperately to find it is every argument you make is just not a very good argument. Well, Joseph Smith wrote it himself. Okay, let's read everything else Joseph Smith wrote. Well, okay, then someone else wrote it for him. Okay, who is that person and what is our timeline and what's our evidence of that? Well, he stole it from someone else and that's how he wrote it. That's his Philastus Hurlbut and the Solomon's Balding manuscript idea. Again, those are arguments that help people sleep at night when they don't want to believe in the Book of Mormon. But they're not actually arguments that are demonstrable. And in the case of the Solomon's Balding manuscript, they are utterly refuted by actual historical evidence.
Gerrit So, this argument we talked about that while Joseph just read about, you know, he read view of the Hebrews and it made him go, you know what? I got, what if I wrote an entire book that sounded like the Bible, that was entirely outside of my own capabilities, that was astonishing to my wife, friends and everyone else who heard me dictated, but I came up with the words myself, but the idea I stole from view of the Hebrews, I'll just, you know, create the book. Like I said, it's not, there's a reason why that argument isn't being made by professors of religious history that are not Latter-day Saints. If that was a really good argument, they would be making it. And as we've said before in the podcast, if the only person who's making your argument about the origins of the Book of Mormon comes from a YouTube channel or a subreddit, then that's how you know it's not a good argument. Because if it was a really good argument, someone with a degree would be making it. And that's a pretty standard way to look at it. At any rate, we said in that that one of the things that's kind of unknown is that there actually are quite a few people who assume at least that the Native Americans are in some way descended from the House of Israel.
Gerrit Now that might seem weird to us today, but we're talking about a thoroughly Biblically imbued society. If you are living in the early 19th century, you think that literally everything that ever happens, it is God willing it. So if you go somewhere and you find a whole bunch of people who you didn't think should be there, well, then of course, God is going to will it. And it's not a very big leap from God is going to will it to if God's going to will it, then it's going to be members of the House of Israel that are part of what God is willing. And we mentioned on that podcast that in fact, the earliest book written in the Americas was written by a guy by the name of Friar Diego de Landa. He is a hiss and a byword among historians and honestly modern day Mayans because he as the local religious official in the 1560s in the Yucatán took it upon himself.
Gerrit So this Spanish conquest happens, early Spanish conquest. Landa examines many of the statues, the stela, and especially the manuscripts that the Mayans have. The Mayans have many manuscripts, many scrolls. And he decides that they are heretical and that they are causing these supposedly converted Mayans to Catholicism, to worship false gods. And so he orders all of them burned. He orders many of the statues destroyed. He orders many of the stela, you know, carved out and broken. So as a historian, he is, well, a monster. I mean, the worst thing you could do in history is destroy historical records. It's the worst thing that can happen. On the other hand, as much as Mayan historians and Mayans themselves hate Landa for his vitriolic heresy hunting that destroyed so much of Mayan culture, Landa did, after the fact, write a book describing Mayan culture and the Yucatán from this 16th century perspective.
Gerrit Now, I am not going to say that everything in that book is endorsed, and obviously he is a conquistador, a friar with the Catholic Church who is looking with nothing but utter contempt upon the natives and seeing them as objects of salvation, but certainly in nowhere near as equal. The book is filled with all kinds of racist things that you would notice from the 16th century. At the same time, he explains how Mayan language works. He provides pronunciation guides to Mayan language that have been helpful for scholars studying today. He also provides some of the history, which we could have gotten from the scrolls he destroyed, but now we have to go through the filter of him. So take everything we are about to say with a grain of salt, but Richard, for instance.
Richard For instance, as it relates specifically to the reference of kind of the view of the Hebrews and the origin of the Native peoples here, he wrote, so this is 1566?
Gerrit Yeah, mid-16th century. I'm not entirely sure when he penned this because it gets published later.
Richard Some old men of Yucatán say that they have heard from their ancestors that this country was peopled by a certain race who came from the east, whom God delivered by opening for them 12 roads through the sea. If this is true, all the inhabitants of the Indies must be of Jewish descent, because the Straits of Magellan, having been passed, they must have spread over more than 2,000 leagues of territory now governed by Spain. So in the mid-1500s, here we have this reference.
Gerrit The very first assessment is, well, these people are here. They claim God led them here through the sea. Well, they must be from the House of Israel. Now, I'm not saying that's definitive. It's certainly not archaeological in any way. The point is the idea that the American Indians in some way descended from the House of Israel, or as he says, the Jewish people, does not originate with the Book of Mormon, nor with view of the Hebrews. It's actually something that originates in the very first assessment, because Landa, in his parochial, conquistador, dismissive sort of way, as he's looking down on these people, he also tends to see certain things that he sees as similarities and that strike him among the Mayan people. And again, this is all according to his account, although there are some archaeological evidences for some of the things he's going to say that you can still find.
Gerrit Some of the carvings he didn't destroy, so there is some cooperation. And I'm certainly not an expert on this, but there are people who are. But another example of something like this...
Richard Baptism is another example. Reading from the book, Baptism is not found anywhere in the Indies, save here in Yucatán. And even a word meaning to be born anew or a second time, the same as the Latin. Thus, in the language of the Yucatán, shahil means to be born anew or a second time, but only however in composition. Its origin we have been unable to learn, but it is something that has always been used, and for which they have had such devotion that no one fails to receive it. They had such reverence for it that those guilty of sins or who knew that they were about to sin were obliged to confess to the priest in order to receive it, and they had such faith in it that in no manner did they ever take it a second time. They believed that in receiving it, they should or they acquired a predisposition to good conduct and habits, protecting them against being harmed by the devils in their earthly affairs, and that through it and living a good life, they would attain a beatitude hereafter, which like that of Mohammed, consisted of eating and drinking.
Richard So there's another example of something that that's an interesting coincidence there.
Gerrit Right. And look, again, we're not making an argument that, oh, look, this proves that the Book of Mormon. The point is, this is the earliest book that's written on Native Americans in the Americas, and you can see this attempt to try to make connections that are there. And there's been all kinds of scholarship that's been done on this from some Latter-day Saints scholars as well as those who are not. And I think that the discussion about where exactly the Book of Mormon took place is one that is, it varies from being interesting to some Latter-day Saints to being a stumbling block to others in the sense that, well, if we can't prove exactly where Zarahemla is, then the whole thing didn't happen, to one that there are people who are dogmatic about where they think it took place.
Gerrit Now it's not a question of where it took place. It's like, I know where it took place. And the point of this podcast isn't to say, and let me tell you, because I was in the Yucatán, it's obviously it was here. The church actually doesn't have a position on that. Now the frustrating thing about that is, even though the church doesn't have a position and the church has said, we don't know where it happened, there are still people who are very adamant and angry at times if people don't accept their explanation of where they think it happened. Let me just read to you from the church's statement on this. They have had multiple statements, but this is one from 2019. So, relatively recently, called Book of Mormon Geography. The Book of Mormon includes a history of ancient people who migrated from the Near East to the Americas. This history contains information about the places they lived, including descriptions of landforms, natural features and the distances, and cardinal directions between important points.
Gerrit The internal consistency of these descriptions is one of the striking features of the Book of Mormon. Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon, with the exception of the events in the Near East, occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although church members continue to discuss such theories today, the church's only position is that the events of the Book of Mormon, the events the Book of Mormon describes, took place in the ancient Americas. So when someone's wondering what's the church's position on where the Book of Mormon took place, the church is very clear about it. The church's only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas. Now, that's important because there are people who say, no, I know definitively it took place here in Peru.
Gerrit Well, as far as the church is concerned, the church doesn't think that. Although one of the more frustrating aspects of people who feel very passionate about different geographic locations is they tend to accuse someone who doesn't readily accept whatever their theory is as somehow not being faithful to the church. Being faithful to the church is following what their actual statement is. And that is, we don't know. That doesn't mean that you can't speculate. It doesn't mean that you can't say, oh, I've got this evidence here, or I like this author's theory here. But it's important every time you make that speculation or discussion that you reiterate that the church doesn't actually have a position, even if it just so happened to be a friend of yours who knew a 70 who said this, the church doesn't have a position on it. That's very different than what you sometimes hear.
Gerrit The statement goes on. The Prophet Joseph Smith himself accepted what he felt was evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations in both North and Central America. While traveling with Zion's Camp in 1834, Joseph wrote his wife that they were wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds that the once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls and bones, and as a proof of divine authenticity. Well, obviously Joseph's not traveling through Central or South America, so you can see that he's assuming that any Native American things are Lamanites and Nephites. In 1842, the church newspaper, The Times and Seasons, published articles under Joseph Smith's editorship that identified the ruins of ancient Native civilizations in Mexico and Central America as further evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity. The church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of the Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas.
Gerrit Speculation on the geography of the Book of Mormon may mislead instead of enlighten, such a study can be a distraction from its divine purpose. Individuals may have their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography and other such matters about which the Lord has not spoken. However, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters. Speaking of the Book of Mormon's history and geography, President Russell M. Nelson taught, interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose, to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.
Gerrit So, I read the entire church statement on this, because I'm well aware that people listening might feel very strongly one way or the other about what they think happened as far as where the Book of Mormon took place. There might be someone listening who feels like, you know, that they're at a total loss because there's no archaeological evidence that matches up precisely the way they want. There might be people listening who think they know for certain that one of the theories about where the Book of Mormon took place is not only true, but it's actually from God. The Church has taken very careful pains to say, we don't really know. And if you are ever to the point where you are advocating a theory to the denigration of someone else who's a member of the Church, well, then you've clearly gone beyond what the Church's statement has said. That can't be what the Church wants you to be doing.
Richard So, I mean, that said, when, so yesterday, we were at Chichén Itzá. It was absolutely amazing. It was a very cool, very cool experience. And when you're there and you're seeing some of the things that are depicted in its architecture and some of the things that were being told by our guide, you can't help but to say, oh, that's interesting. That's interesting. That's interesting. You said something that I thought was interesting yesterday where you were saying, that's all, it's all interesting. And this is very, very cool. And I can see how somebody would really throw themselves into it and really want to study and understand these things. But then people take a step too far and saying, this is a definitive thing here.
Gerrit Right. You go from not, you know, you go from, oh, this is a very interesting thing, to this is literally the only thing that possibly could have happened. And if anyone disputes it, then they don't actually have a testimony. You go from, wow, isn't it interesting that there's some similarities between, you know, ancient Native American, you know, circumcision rituals and Hebrew circumcision rituals, to I found Lehi's house and this is its address. And I didn't know that he had a stone wall rather than a picket fence outside of it, but clearly he must have. Right? So you don't want to go too far on it. And the reality is people who are scholars, who are trained in these fields of archaeology and history, they don't want to take it too far because they understand that there's so much we don't know. I know that one of Richard's great pet peeves in life, aside from being my friend, number two, and only slightly less well known as this, that when people definitively talk about how we know something from American archaeology, they are being definitive about things that they don't even know.
Gerrit So for instance of this, in my own life, when I was in college, it was known, and I mean it was in 100% every anthropology textbook you read, that there were no horses in the United States, or what would become the United States, in North America or South America. There were no horses at all, you know, after 20,000 BC, right? So therefore, one of the great claims that's made against the Book of Mormon being true by detractors is, well, it talks about horses being in it, so therefore, there's, you know, it's a lie, Joseph Smith made that up. He rode horses into that because we all know that horses, you know, all died out, you know, first of all it was, there were no horses in the ancient Americas. Then they discovered some prehistoric horses. And so, okay, yes, but they all died out by 20,000 BC. And then that date just keeps moving.
Gerrit It's moved in the past 20 years. I mean, in the past 20 years, it's gone from, you know, no horses at all since 20,000 to 13,000 to 12,000 to 10,000 to 5,000. And, you know, the reality is there's even some anecdotal discoveries of people claiming that there are horse bones that are found around the turn of the millennia. Well, during the time we're talking about, there's also been a movement from some indigenous scholars to argue that the Eurocentric explanation of well, Europeans came and Europeans introduced horses to the Indians. Recently, there's an indigenous scholar who wrote a dissertation arguing that in fact, that is all based on the Europeans telling Native American story, and she thinks it's an ethnocentrism, and she thinks that it's a, that, you know, she did oral interviews with various tribes, and all of them claimed to have history with the horses long before contact with whites.
Gerrit Now, of course, there's a gap between oral history and what you can archaeologically prove, but I think that the whole point of Richard's great pet peeve is that when someone states something definitively as being the case or not being the case, what they really mean is, we haven't found any evidence of X yet, or we haven't found convincing evidence of X yet, rather than there's absolutely no possible way. When people talk about things like horses in the Book of Mormon, when they're using it as their argument, they don't say, yes, they found what appear to be drawings of horses that would be in the right time period. They appear to have found toys or sculptures that might depict horses. They don't say that. They say, it's absolutely proven that there were absolutely no horses here, and Joseph Smith made that up.
Gerrit That's what they say, right?
Richard That's right. It is a funny thing for me to be so irritated about, given the fact that it is kind of a silly thing. But the very nature that it's a silly thing is the thing that's so frustrating to me, as it relates to a person having it be a major hit to their testimony, that, oh, we haven't found horses yet. And one of the reasons that it is so ridiculous is because there's so much of the Amazon and so much of Central and South America that hasn't been explored in any real and meaningful way. It's not until fairly recently that they're using LIDAR technology to be able to do kind of a deeper search, cutting through all the vegetation to be able to find additional civilizations that they didn't think previously existed. Just last year they found on the Yucatán Peninsula an enormous population that previously was completely undiscovered.
Richard And in Guatemala they had what they thought was a fairly large area, a huge metropolitan area in Guatemala that they thought might be as high as 5 million people that inhabited that area. With LIDAR technology, they discovered that over 60,000 houses in that area with a population that could have been as high as 15 million. This was a couple of years ago. And so the idea, just the idea that, oh, we can definitively say that there aren't anything in this place, is just, it's ridiculous.
Gerrit The reality is, it's shifting. LIDAR technology is, it's a new aspect of archaeology in these various places where you can't find these ruins just because of the jungle overgrowth, but using this laser, you are able to find it. The number of sites that are unexcavated, meaning that they have found with this technology, but no one has put shovel one in the ground to find out what's there, is essentially 97, 98% of known sites at this point. We are at the very beginning point of archeological work in North and South America. Not the end point, not the, oh yes, we have it all and this is all that we know. I mean, obviously this is not to argue that someone might be like, well, how come we don't have more evidence of this?
Gerrit And the answer, of course, is I don't know. But there's a difference between the absence of evidence and definitive evidence to the contrary. And that's one of the things we've talked about when it comes to sources. Simply saying, well, I mean, if I was Joseph Smith, I would have written down about the First Vision lots of times. That's something that sounds like it's a great argument, but it's actually not a very good argument. Because first of all, you're not Joseph Smith. Unless Joseph Smith happens to be listening, then I guess he is. But the reality is, you don't know what you would do with a powerful, sacred experience. And I guarantee there are people listening to us right now who at some point in their life thought if they ever had a miracle happen to them, they would write about it and tell everybody about it. And they're thinking right now, I didn't even write that in my journal.
Richard And here's the other thing too, is let's say then evidence is found of horses. Well, then that critic just checks that off of the list and moves on to the next thing.
Gerrit I don't know, let's talk about elephants. At any rate, I think this wider discussion of where the Book of Mormon took place has a great deal of acrimony in it. And it's important to know that if you ever come across these acrimonious arguments from one side or the other, that they're arguing about something that wasn't argued about in Joseph Smith's time. As the statement from the Church demonstrates, in Joseph Smith's time, they don't think that they know exactly the place that Lehi's house was built when he first got to the New World. They instead assume that every Native American and every Native American civilization is all part of the Lamanite and Nephite thing. Well, where's the city of Zarahemla? It's very interesting, right?
Gerrit There are certainly Latter-day Saint-oriented tours in the Yucatán in which someone is saying, like, now I know for certain, here's the city bountiful, and this must have been the river Sidon, right? Again, we don't know any of those things, and I understand that we want to know them because we feel like, oh, this proves what I believe about the Book of Mormon. But the reality is the questions we're asking about the geography of where these things took place, they come much later than Joseph Smith's time. It's not until really the 20th century that Latter-day Saints start trying to lay down the various distances and geographical regions that are given in the Book of Mormon to try to create maps and try to overlay that over North and South America and say, oh, I could work here. And so it's always a difficult thing when you're looking back in the past to try to find evidence for something that those same people didn't actually believe.
Gerrit This happens on every side of that debate of where the Book of Mormon took place primarily because people feel so strongly about it. And so they're willing to grab anything as evidence, even if the evidence that's being presented was not intended to do that. Now, I'm going to give you an example of this from both sides that, you know, of how things can be taken and say, aha, this is now definitive. Let me start with the article that is referenced in the Church's Statement that's in the Times and Seasons. This article is discussing various aspects of the Book of Mormon history and how there's evidence that there can be found. But here is the part of it. This is from the Times and Seasons, which is a church newspaper.
Gerrit It's the 15th of July, 1842. It's an editorial. It's signed editor, and Joseph Smith is the editor of the Times and Seasons at that time. Now, there certainly are people who would say, well, even though he's signing it as editor, maybe someone else wrote it. Is that a possibility? Of course it's a possibility. It's always a possibility that there are aspects of the sources we are looking at that we don't know. But it's very important that we don't place what we want to be the case ahead of what we can prove to be the case, right? So is it possible someone else wrote this instead of Joseph? Yes. Is it probable? No. Let's say that someone else did write it. Is it probable that Joseph doesn't know it's being published? No. Is it probable that Joseph Smith doesn't agree with it?
Gerrit No. In fact, Joseph does at times put retractions into the Times and Seasons in the newspaper when there are things published that he's not okay with. So if you're someone who thinks, well, yeah, this isn't really from Joseph, again, I understand why you might think that, but there's a difference between proving a thing and wanting a thing to be the case. So let's see what he has to say. After listing off these various things, the editor, the author of this article, says if men and their researches into the history of this country in noticing the mounds, fortifications, statues, architecture, implements of war, of husbandry, and ornaments of silver, brass, etc. were to examine the Book of Mormon, their conjectures would be removed and their opinions altered. Uncertainty and doubt would be changed into certainty and facts. Now, of course, this is 1842, so modern archaeology that we know doesn't actually exist.
Gerrit You have essentially people talking about ancient things. When people are doing biblical archaeology, it's all a quest to find exactly what the Bible has already said, not the other way around. Archaeology is a science, doesn't exist yet. That's important to know. So there's all kinds of theories, and that's what Joseph is referring to. They would find that those things, that they are anxiously prying into matters of history unfolded in that book. They would find their conjectures were more than realized that a great and mighty people had inhabited this continent, that the arts, sciences and religion had prevailed to a very great extent, and that there was as great and mighty cities on this continent as on the continent of Asia. Babylon, Nineveh, nor any of the ruins of the Levant could boast a more perfect sculpture, better architectural designs, and more imperishable ruins than what we have found on this continent. Stevens and Catherwood's research is into Central America.
Gerrit This is a book that's published by these explorer-travelers in Central America. Stevens and Catherwood's research in Central America abundantly testify of this thing. The stupendous ruins, the elegant sculpture, and the magnificence of the ruins of Guatemala and other cities corroborate this statement and show that a great and mighty people, men of great minds, clear intellect, bright genius, and comprehensive designs inhabited this continent. Their ruins speak of their greatness. The Book of Mormon unfolds their history. And that's the end of it. So you can see how this would be taken as evidence that Joseph Smith or at least the Church's newspaper in 1842 sees the ruins of Central America as proof of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. In fact, that's what it specifically says. Look, this is the proof of the great civilizations talked about in the Book of Mormon.
Gerrit So that, of course, can cause someone who is saying that they know exactly where the Book of Mormon took place to say, aha, see, it was published in a Church newspaper that it was in Guatemala. We know because it was published in the Church newspaper and that proves that it was there. And by the way, here's Nephi's address when he went to the land of Nephi. I mean, what the article also references though, it references mounds, right? And notice how it's talking about this continent. You have to remember that Central America is considered part of North America. And you can see actually instead of saying, well, this is proof that all of the Book of Mormon took place in Central America, really what the article is demonstrating is that the author thinks that the Book of Mormon took place everywhere. It took place where there are mound builders. It took place where there are. Now, of course, someone today might say, well, yeah, but if it's only three days from Zarahemla to Bountiful and they've worked it all out, it can't have existed both in Mississippi and also in Guatemala.
Gerrit But that's a question that's being asked by a 20th and now 21st century Mormon. It's not a question that's being asked by the writer of this article. They aren't mapping out the Book of Mormon to try to figure out how many days journey from X to Y is and where would that fit. That comes later. What does this reflect? It reflects that the author believes that the Book of Mormon took place everywhere, that it is the definitive explanation of the historicity of Native American civilizations and of course is pointing to these magnificent ruins of civilizations in Central America as proof that there really were major cities in the Americas. That's an argument that's made on the one side. Now, on the other side, there are those who say, well, yes, but the entire Book of Mormon must have taken place somewhere in the vicinity of much further North America in the boundaries of what is today the United States.
Gerrit There are multiple reasons for that, but the primary argument that's going to be made is regarding Oliver Cowdery's explanation of events that take place in a letter he writes to the church newspaper. Oliver writes a series of letters to WW. Phelps, who's the editor of the church newspaper at the time. He writes a series of letters. It's kind of confusing because this newspaper is in Ohio. Remember Phelps was in Missouri, if you listen to some previous podcasts. He wasn't in Missouri anymore. His press is destroyed. It's in that after period that Cowdery determines to write a series of letters to the church, all surrounding his experiences. We know some of the quotes from these letters as Oliver Cowdery is talking about his experience with the translation.
Gerrit But there's a particular part of one of Oliver Cowdery's letters that 20th and 21st century Latter-day Saints have grabbed a hold of, feeling that this provides a definitive answer to something that they think about the geography of the Book of Mormon. After describing several aspects of Joseph Smith getting the plates, Oliver Cowdery in this letter to the church's newspaper says, I must now give you some description of the place where and the manner in which these records were deposited. You are acquainted with the mail road from Palmyra, Wayne County to Canandaigua, Ontario, County, New York. And also as you pass from the former to the latter. Now, I love how Oliver writes that like, of course, you know the road. But of course, WW. Phelps did know the road because remember, he used to be a newspaper editor in Canandaigua and he loses his job because he is investigating the Book of Mormon. He actually gets thrown in jail for it. So as you pass from the former to the latter place, before arriving at the little village of Manchester, say from three to four or about four miles from Palmyra, you pass a large hill on the east side of the road.
Gerrit Why I say large is because it's as large perhaps as any in that country. To a person acquainted with this road, a description would be unnecessary as it is the largest and rises the highest of any on that route. The north end rises quite sudden until it assumes a level with the more southerly extremity. And I think I may say an elevation higher than at the south, a short distance, say half or three-fourths of a mile. As you pass towards Canandaigua, it lessens gradually until the surface assumes its common level, or it is broken by other smaller hills or ridges, watercourses and ravines. I think I'm justified in saying that this is the highest hill for some distance around, and I am certain that its appearance, as it rises so suddenly from a plain on the north, must attract the notice of travelers as he passes by. About one mile west rises another ridge of less height, running parallel with the former, leaving a beautiful veil between.
Gerrit The soil is of the first quality for the country, and under a state of cultivation, which gives a prospect at once imposing, when one reflects on the fact that here between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredite and Nephites were destroyed. So you see now why this becomes so key. By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the Book of Mormon, of course he's using an 1830 Book of Mormon, if you're trying to find it in your own, you gotta get an 1830 Book of Mormon to know what he's talking about. You will read Mormon's account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped around this hill, Cumorah. In this valley fell the remaining strength and pride of the once powerful people, the Nephites, one so highly favored of the Lord, but at the time in darkness doomed to suffer extermination by the hand of their barbarous and uncivilized brethren. From the top of this hill, Mormon with a few others after the battle, gazed with horror upon the mangled remains of those who were the day before, were filled with anxiety, hope or doubt.
Gerrit A few had fled to the south, were hunted down by the victorious party, and all who would not deny the Savior and his religion were put to death. Mormon himself, according to the record of his son Moroni, was also slain. But a long time previous to this, it goes on to say that this was prophesied, that this was going to happen. You see the reason why. Here, Cowdery seems to be stating definitively that the same hill in which the records were deposited, where Joseph found the gold plates, was also the same place where the actual battle took place at the end of the Book of Mormon. And so this is taken as evidence to say, well, the whole Book of Mormon must have taken place, if we put our little map down, where we're trying to have a three days' distance between this place and this place, it had to have happened somewhere in upstate New York or Ohio or something like, maybe even Michigan, some people said, because that's, you know, the distances involved and that's where the Book of Mormon final battle took place.
Gerrit Of course, there are other people who have argued that Cowdery is just wrong about this. It wouldn't be the only thing Oliver Cowdery is wrong about in his recounting of the history. In fact, in these same letters, he recounts aspects of Joseph Smith's First Vision that are wrong in their chronology and in fact have opened the door for antagonists to attack the church, saying, oh yes, they don't even know when this happened and things like that. So you can see why this is taken as evidence for someone who thinks of this kind of North American model that this proves it. The problem is when you're dealing with sources, what it would really prove is that this is what Oliver Cowdery thought. It wouldn't prove that this is what everyone thought. And again, here's the problem. Cowdery might very well think that the last final battle of the Book of Mormon took place there on the Hill Cumorah, which becomes a pretty standard belief by people for a while.
Gerrit But that doesn't actually mean that that is the case, simply because he believes that. Now someone might say yes, but Phelps published it in the church newspaper. Again, yes, but Phelps doesn't think that by publishing it, he's making a definitive statement for all time. One that's actually more important than what a current prophet says about that thing. The reality is that there's a lot of variables in this. People who advocate for a more Mesoamerican location of the Book of Mormon, they say things like, well, it would be very normal for Moroni to, in all of his wanderings, his decades of wanderings, to name the place where he finally buries the plates, the same name as the hill where he watched all of his people get slaughtered, because it's kind of a fitting tie-in. That's seen as preposterous by people who take a more North American model by saying, are you trying to tell me that he wandered thousands of miles? To which a Mesoamericanist would say, yes.
Gerrit I mean, you can see the problem here, but really, I mean, again, theories of where people think things happen, that's fine. The problem comes when there is an acrimony surrounding it, when there's the suggestion that someone who doesn't accept one theory or the other simply doesn't actually have a testimony or isn't following the prophets, which I think is the whole point of the Church's statement on it. You can think a certain thing, but what the Church is trying to make clear is, whatever it is you think is not the point of the Book of Mormon, and it's also not a point of being contentious about the Book of Mormon. As I said at the outset, one of the reasons why this discussion slash argument is a little frustrating is that it's so anachronistic. There is plentiful evidence that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, others, they think of the entirety of North and South America as the land of Zion.
Gerrit In fact, we can go to Wilford Woodruff's Journal. He records Joseph Smith giving a sermon on the 8th of April, 1844. And this is what he has to say. I have a proclamation to make to the elders. You know the Lord has led the church until this present time. I have now a great proclamation for the elders to teach the church hereafter, which is in relation to Zion. The whole of North and South America is Zion. The mountain of the Lord's house is in the center of North and South America. When the house is done, baptism font erected and finished, and the worthy are washed and anointed, endowed and ordained kings and priests, which must be done in this life. When the place is prepared, you must go through all the ordinances of the house of the Lord, so that you, who have any dead friends, must go through all the ordinances for them, the same as for yourselves.
Gerrit Then the elders are to go through all America and build up churches until all Zion is built up. But not to commence to do this until the temple is built up here and the elders endowed and go forth and accomplish the work and build up stakes in all North and South America. He goes on to say, There will be some places ordained for the redeeming of the dead. I think this place will be one, so there will be a gathering fast enough here. This is important because one of the arguments that is made against the idea that the Book of Mormon could have taken place anywhere outside of where the United States is today is that, well, the United States is the promised land. It's not Guatemala. It's not Brazil. For the blessings or the promises of those who worship Jesus on this land have to follow him in order to have this promise of God's protection, the argument is that the United States is where the land of Zion is going to be.
Gerrit And that's very appealing to people who love their country and want to feel God's hand supporting it. The problem is, it's very clear by the end of Joseph Smith's life that when he is talking about Zion, he's not talking about just the United States. In fact, he's very clearly saying it's both the North and South America. And in fact, his statement on it is so profound that what does Brigham Young do? So after that, Brigham Young arose and said, the above doctrine was true, and I will add a remark to it. If a man tries to rise by pulling another down, he will sink as soon as a piece of pop metal. Preach faith and repentance and baptism. Say nothing but repentance to this generation. We need not go into mysteries. Preach the same over again. When I heard Brother Joseph make his proclamation yesterday, I thought it was a sweepstakes when he said North and South America was Zion.
Gerrit Any elder that will be wise when he gets his endowment can go into any city and build up the largest church in that city. This proves the prophet true. So this idea of it's an exhilarating one to bring him young. It's not just the United States that is this blessed land of Zion. It's exhilarating to him that Joseph Smith is saying that all of it is the land of Zion. Meaning all of it has that blessing and that promise. The other anachronistic thing, and we've discussed this before, and we'll obviously discuss it again as it falls along my lines of research, is that by the time Joseph Smith is saying this, he's actually already made the decision to leave the United States. By late 1843, Joseph's already decided that the United States is essentially incompatible with the practice of the Latter-day Saints.
Gerrit And then, of course, Joseph's going to be murdered shortly thereafter, and nothing's going to be done about it. This does not dissuade Latter-day Saint leaders that the United States is somehow a fallen nation because it allowed the murders of the Smiths as well as many other people in Missouri and in Illinois, and there was nothing ever done about it. As we talked about with the Council of 50, when the Latter-day Saints leave Illinois, they very much believe they are leaving the United States in part because the Gentiles of the United States have rejected the Gospel and the judgments of God are coming upon them, and in fact, there is very little over the course of the next five decades that persuades any of those Latter-day Saints in Utah, well, they will then be persecuted even further, that anything else, there's nothing that persuades them that that isn't the case, that America isn't a fallen nation.
Gerrit They see the Civil War as the just judgments of God upon a nation that murdered the prophets and cast out the righteous. They see the Book of Mormon saying, when you cast the righteous out from among you, the judgments of God must surely come. So when you try to read into an 1850 statement or an 1840 statement or an 1835 statement of someone from the past to try to prove what you currently want to believe about Book of Mormon geography, part of the peril that you're fraught with is, these people actually believe that the United States itself was a fallen nation, as demonstrated by the extermination orders for which there was no reprieve coming from the government, as demonstrated by Martin Van Buren saying, your cause is just and I can do nothing for you, as demonstrated by not a single person being convicted for the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith or the murder of Amanda Barnes Smith's husband or children, the murder of the people in Hans Mill, the murder of Edmund Durfee.
Gerrit I mean, when the Latter Day Saints leave the United States, they are, as John Taylor and Orson Pratt are saying publicly, bidding farewell to what they see as a corrupt and evil nation. Now, I'm not saying that's the case. I'm not saying that I don't love my dad as an immigrant to the United States, and he loved the United States. Fourth of July was his favorite holiday, and it wasn't even close. But we have to be careful that we don't project our current understandings and beliefs onto people from the past. When we do it, it causes us to use sources like the 1842 editorial to the Times and Seasons, or Oliver Cowdery's article to the Church. It causes us to use them for purposes that the authors never intended them to be used for.
Gerrit And that can lead us down a way where we end up maybe becoming contentious over something that the current prophet is saying, don't be contentious over this. It's unfortunate that in the Community of Christ Church, that they have stopped preaching the Book of Mormon to many of their congregations. This is the former reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints now renamed the Community of Christ. And when I asked one of their leaders about this, their response was that they felt like the messenger was getting in the way of the message. As he described it further to me, everyone hates you guys. And I think he meant our Church. Everyone hates Mormons. And so the very name Book of Mormon was causing people to not listen to what we have to say. And so we just, you know, many of our congregations don't use it anymore, and we certainly don't preach it in many places.
Gerrit I fear that we have a situation similar like that today among Latter-day Saints, who of course are desperate and curious, like the early Latter-day Saints, to know where the city of Zion was going to be located. We have Latter-day Saints today who are desperate to know where exactly the Book of Mormon takes place. Like Martin Harris, we want to take the characters to show people, so we can prove to them that what we believe isn't made up. But I think we need to go back to what the Church is actually saying, what President Nelson is saying, and that is, you know, these theories that might be interesting, they can't become the bedrock of why we believe, and certainly not the bedrock of why we accuse others of non-belief. The Book of Mormon is a miracle. It is a miracle that anyone who reads, honestly, will know that did not come from Joseph Smith. Whether the Book of Mormon took place in Guatemala or in Michigan, whether it took place in Baja or in Brazil, whether it took place in Tierra del Fuego or on the Isthmus of Panama, what matters is this is an account of the Savior Jesus Christ appearing and a record that he really was resurrected, that he really lives.
Gerrit Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone on either side of these discussions because of this discussion here, but I do want to present what it is the Church is saying about it. You can have your beliefs one way or the other. Certainly, there are scholars who are far better trained in archaeology and Mesoamerican history than me, who really feel strongly that the Book of Mormon likely took place in those areas. But until we have more direction from the leaders of the Church themselves, I think it's best to follow what it is the Church is saying, and that is, you can theorize, but let's not get caught up, and certainly not so caught up that we contentiously attack one another, when in fact, we should just be grabbing a hold of one another, grateful that someone else besides ourselves believes the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.
Intro Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat. If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. And for more resources, visit standardoftruth.com. Until next time.

Quote board

Make a share card from any line

Yes, the zero dollars that we've made on the podcast has really paid off.

GerritBanter

Have you wanted answers to questions that won't ever be answered by hosts constantly deflecting the issues? Tune in to the Standard of Truth podcast.

GerritBanter

Yeah, well, we would be like the bacteria on the bottom of the bird's feet.

GerritBanter

I have just one bad, fast testimony meeting away from leaving the church.

RichardBanter

I have a strong faith and belief in the Savior and outside of the restored gospel, I just can't get an understanding of him in the way that makes sense any other way.

RichardInsight

He could have made him allergic to fruit.

GerritBanter

But there's a difference between the absence of evidence and definitive evidence to the contrary.

GerritInsight

Well, then that critic just checks that off of the list and moves on to the next thing.

RichardInsight

The Book of Mormon is a miracle.

GerritInsight

grateful that someone else besides ourselves believes the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.

GerritInsight

More from this episode

Claim checkThings people say, and what the episode shows.

Claim check

What critics say, and what the episode found
It's been proven there were no horses in the Americas, so the Book of Mormon is false.
Joseph Smith copied the idea of Israelite Native Americans from View of the Hebrews.
Faithful members must accept one specific Book of Mormon geography.
Take it to classReady to use in a lesson or a talk.

Take it to class

Ready to copy into a lesson or a text

The church's only position on Book of Mormon geography is that it happened "in the ancient Americas." Theorize all you like, but never make it a test of someone's testimony.

In 1844 Joseph taught, "The whole of North and South America is Zion," and Brigham Young called it a sweepstakes.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; archaeologists have barely put a shovel in most known sites in the Americas.

President Nelson taught that the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when we focus on its purpose, to testify of Jesus Christ.

Banter binThe funniest moments in this episode.

Banter bin

The running jokes, for people who skip ahead
On locationThe satellite studio off the Yucatan, paid for by the zero dollars the podcast makes, recording past the bottomless soda packages (0:38, 0:55).
Gerrit never answers the question (quickly)Jeff's teaser-video email becomes the proposed podcast description (1:31, 2:46).
Follow Him needs our plugThe rhinoceros and the bird, with Standard of Truth as the bacteria on the bird's feet (3:23, 3:44).
Richard's name stays off the podcastThe Twinkie dangling on a stick keeps him motivated (6:02, 6:14).
We're huge in...Arizona: Brandon, and Gerrit's brother, who doesn't listen (6:24, 6:33).
Unisom anti-MormonismSpalding and other theories exist to help people sleep at night (18:33).
Unindexed podcastsGerrit can't point you to the earlier episode (11:27, 17:32).
Allergic to fruitAdam reaching for an EpiPen (16:16).
Lehi's house addressWith a stone wall rather than a picket fence (36:10, 52:16).
Dad loved the FourthCallback to Gerrit's immigrant dad, whose favorite holiday wasn't even close (69:55).
The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown MailbagSend Gerrit and Richard your question.

The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag

Your question could be next week’s episode
Questions from Litners drive a lot of episodes. Send yours. If it makes the show, Richard reads it on air.
Go deeperWhere to read more.

Go deeper

Deep dives the episode points toward
Read the church's 2019 Gospel Topics essay "Book of Mormon Geography" in full (29:07).
Look up recent LIDAR discoveries in the Yucatan and Guatemala (41:07).
Read Oliver Cowdery's 1834-35 letters to W. W. Phelps in the Messenger and Advocate (54:43).
Read the July 1842 Times and Seasons editorial and Stephens and Catherwood's travel book (48:06).
SOT Litner · S2E32.