Back to Mormonism Researched Page

A Neglected Source

Letter to editor of the magazine, The Ancient American, June 1, 1994

By Kerry A. Shirts

(Author's comment per 1998: Keep in mind this was written in 1994 and there have been some new studies on these areas I discussed. I'll link to them from the FARMS site as I can. I tried mainly to deal with two main issues here.

1. The Mormons making public, documents of historical interest and not keeping them secret, nor controlling them and keeping them from prying eyes

2. B.H. Roberts Book of Mormon studies and how new information and archaeological research has answered his questions on many issue which critics still refuse to update on. The many dozens of links to this information is provided at the end of the footnotes below)

David Allen Deal's stimulating article, "The Mystic Symbol De-Mystified," in the March/April edition of The Ancient American, 1994 (pp. 16-23) brought up issues which caight my attention, which need addressing. The task of this article is to present some correlation with the Ancient America's and the American document, the Book of Mormon. But first, some clarification seems to be sorely needed on a few things about Mormons in general and scholars in particular.

Mormon Control of Documents

Mr. Deal mentions that Mormons are in control of documents and he hopes they'll publish their research soon on the "Soper-Savage Collection" as the group of documents is called. I also am in high hopes of seeing their research published. But the tone of his article strikes me as not necessarily sinister about Mormons controlling documents, but, derogatory. Apparently the Mormons have had the documents for awhile, and fears are expressed that it will be a long time until we see anything of them. Hopefully this will not be the case.

In every instance, so far as we know, we Mormons have gone to great efforts to put documents into the hands of scholars as soon as possible. Joseph Smith, upon copying down characters from the Golden Plates from which the Book of Mormon came, sent Martin Harris, along with the copies of characters, to scholars in order for them to see he was serious about what he was claiming. [1] When the Pearl of Great Price Book of Abraham Papyri was purchased by Joseph Smith, he immediately put it on public display at the Mansion House in Nauvoo in order to allow the public to see them. [2] He also published excerpts in the Times and Seasons newspaper as he progressed on the translation of the Book of Abraham. When certain fragments of the papyri came back into the church's possession in 1967, the church immediately published photographs of them in the Improvment Era, in 1967 for everyone to see. Mormons published the research they were involved in, whether by Hugh Nibley of BYU, or John Tvedtnes of Hebrew University, or the actual Egyptologists in the journal Dialogue, as well as giving criticial anti-Mormon evaluations their fair share of column space. The first thing Klaus Baer, the Chicago Egyptologist, said was "The speed with which photographs of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri were published once they came into the possession of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a gratifying contrast to the secrecy with which their previous custodians surrounded them." [3] Apparently thought to have been destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the papyri came to reside in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York until Aziz Atiya found them tucked away on a shelf in the basement. [4] Jay M. Todd noted that

"...some Egyptologists, Egyptian museum curators, and other non-Mormon scholars have known [this said in 1968] about the existence of the papyrus fragments - and their relationship to the Church - since as early as 1902! For 65 years! As Hugh Nibley has noted, 'They have been in the hands of recognized scholars for many years, although no Latter Day Saint was even aware of their existence until about two years ago. At no time have the manuscripts not been just as available to Egyptologists as they are now to members of the Church. Since the Church obtained them, they have been made available to everyone. It is not the Mormons who have kept the documents out of the hands of the scholars but the other way around. If it had not been for Professor Aziz S. Atiya, we should still know nothing about the papyri; he is in a very real sense their discoverer.'" [5]

Hugh Nibley went to Chicago to study Egyptology under Wilson and Baer and noted how reluctant the scholars are to discuss anything at all about Joseph Smith's scriptures, in this case the Pearl of Great Price, or the papyri the Prophet once possessed. They constantly ignored current research and analysis. The attitude is hardly changed today. [6]

In every instance we seriously try to put information out for the public to scrutinize and test, analyze, and debate over. Mormon scholars believe the very best way to test Joseph Smith's prophetic claims, as well as the scriptures, is to generate the widest possible reading of them the world over. In fact, just a few years ago the name Abraham was found in genuine Egyptian texts, which have lain around for years, and the Mormon researcher, John Gee, published his findings for scholars to analyze. [7] But do scholars return the same consideration? No, not when it comes to the Ancient American document, the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is a nigh perfect genre of ancient American Literature in our hands, and has been for the last 160 years. This magazine, The Ancient American, is designed to discuss aspects of diffusion between the Old World and the New World, sizing up the connections, viewing possibilities and discussing reliability, authenticity of finds, and historical texts, stones, engravings, etc. Yet one of the primary documents, perhaps the largest document in print to date, the Book of Mormon, is ignored by the vast majority of scholars.

Scholar's Views

In the last two decades major research in linguistics, archaeology, geography, religion and history have occurred with the Book of Mormon in order to demonstrate how it sizes up with its own claims, with virtually little of the research even being considered.

Doesn't this seem a rather odd way to use, or rather ignore sources? Does it have to be that if anyone looks into the Book of Mormon, that someone, whoever he or she is, chances losing their credentials?

The eminent Judaic scholar, Jacob Neusner, commented that "Among our collegues are some who do not really like religion in its living forms, but find terribly interesting religion in its dead forms." An example of a living form - "a fresh Christian expression" - that has too often endured scholarly neglect is, he says, the Book of Mormon. [8] W.D. Davies, the eminent Dean of Religious Instruction at harvard in 1986 wrote a serious scholarly work on the Book of Mormon for the Harvard Theological Review, in 1986 which we viewed "as one hopeful sign of growing scholarly interest in Mormonism," but perhaps prematurely as Dr. Davies apparently has received ridicule and "considerable criticism for having wasted his time and talents on so unworthy a subject." [9] In light of the fact that the eminent non-Mormon sociologist of religion Rodney Stark says: "It is possible today to study that incredibly rare event: the rise of a new world religion [since the call of the Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century A.D.], the Mormons, will soon achieve a worldwide following comparable to that of Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and the other dominant world faiths," he predicts membership of between 60 million and 265 million Latter Day Saints by the year 2080,[10] as well as seeing the scholarly attitude about the Book of Mormon, that it has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it, [11] something really rather odd is going on.

How on earth can anyone ignore, say, the Popol Vuh, yet proclaim it to be redundant, stupid, extremely boring, and otherwise unfit to consider for any historical verification or mythic, religious significance to the peoples in Ancient America? Wouldn't reading it be the first correct step in describing the effects it has on a reader? Yet the Book of Mormon is neglected and spurned in just a like manner.

Backgrounds and Correlations

There are many correlations with the Book of Mormon and the ancient world. The Book of Mormon has two faces, the Old World Ancient Near Eastern one, and the Ancient New World face. It claims to have come from the Old World, which claims have been intriguingly researched for authentic backgrounds in that Old World of the Ancient Near East 600 B.C. [12] This paper will examine some correlation from the New World, indicating that indeed, what we have here is an authentic document which demonstrates that diffusion of some aspects in some cultures very well could have taken place.

Languages

B.H. Roberts, the Mormon intellectual General Authority, who lived during the beginning of this century, analyzed the many known dialects of languages in the Ancient Americas and concluded that these many languages show not many close relationships to each other. He said it would have taken a longer time than the Book of Mormon allows to develop the various dialects, and that there was no connection between the languages in the New World and the Old World. And finally that if the languages from other areas around the world had come to America, they would have affected the language or culture of the American people. [13] In presenting these arguments against the Book of Mormon in his day (the 1900 - 1930's era) using the devil's advocate approach [14] in order to train the Mormons to deal with problems of the Book of Mormon as non-Mormons saw them, we can see several assumptions of the time about the Book of Mormon which in our day have come to light for their weaknesses.

One assumption was that the Book of Mormon should account for all the languages in the New World. We know that the Book of Mormon peoples were not the only peoples here on the continent, nor does the Book of Mormon disallow other peoples from coming over to ancient America with their own peculiar cultural baggage. [15] Another assumption Roberts labored under, perhaps without understanding it, was that people adopt everything about other people's culture once they come in contact with them. But anthropologists today know that diffusion is selectiveand that "not all cultural traits are borrowed... nor do they usually expand in neat, ever-widening circles..." [16] In fact, there are many examples of a culture borrowing items and then changing them beyond recognitionfrom the original. Others they use and then discard.

For instance, Peter Bartley in his text, Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book and the Cult, Dublin:Veritas, 1989, says Hebrew was never spoken in the Americas because there is no evidence of Semitic linguistic elements surviving in colonial times. And then he undercuts his arguments when he decidedly tries to demonstrate the linguistic variety which characterized pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, he observes "Precisely how many languages were spoken in the Americas will never be known, for many of them have become extinct." [17] If unnumbered languages have disappeared without enough traces to testify they once existed here, then the door is open for Hebrew having once been here. The same holds for Egyptian, which Mormons are particularly interested in since at least these two languages are represented by the Book of Mormon as having come into the New World via the Old World. Not that the entire New World adopted them, because as the Book of Mormon stresses, the peoples in the Book of Mormon were certainly the minority population, not the majority wielding all that much influence over all the other cultures. But what of Hebrew? An interesting study on this came to light just in the last few years.

Linguist Brian Stubbs, in his paper "Elements of Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan: A Summary of the Data," has noted 203 equivilances between the two language families of Semitic (Hebrew, Arabic, Aramiac, Babylonian, and Ugaritic) and Aztecan (ranging from the Northern Piute and Shoshoni including Hopi and Papago, Tarahumara and Yaqui to Nahuatl, the Aztec language). For example, the Hebrew yasav, "he sat or dwelt," is very similar to Hopi yesiva, "to sit."

Stubbs does not conclude that Uto-Aztecan descended from Hebrew alone, but suggests that Uto-Aztecan language family may have evolved by creolization, the formation of a new language from mixing two or more active languages. His study can be had from F.A.R.M.S. in Provo, Utah, and promises interesting new developments as we learn to recognize even more new ties between the Old World and the New.

The Egyptian connection has been noted by Barry Fell [18], Ivan Van Sertima [19], Norman Totten [20], John Sorenson [21], Paul R. Cheesman [22], and the F.A.R.M.S. staff [23], to name just a few. One of the most interesting archaeological findings directly connecting Egypt with the New World, it would seem, are two Egyptian figures which were unearthed from a depth of three meters from the eastern beaches of Acajutla, Sonsonate, El Salvador, on the Pacific Coast near the Guatemala-El Slavador border. The depth they were dug from suggest an ancient origin. The ground had been undisturbed for centuries. They belong to a class of ancient Egyptian funerary statuettes known as ushabti. Both are incised with Egyptian hieroglyphic texts. Ushabti figurines were popular for much of Egyptian history, including the time of Lehi and Nephi (the Saitic Dynasty). These show, we believe, that at least ancient ocean crossings, like Lehi's in the Book of Mormon, were possible. [24] Hopefully, new discoveries which are certainly demonstrating the plausibility of the Book of Mormon, as well as great possibility of contact between continents will not meet the same fate as the translation and further understanding of Mayan hieroglyphs we have gained. Michael Coe, the great Mayan scholar fills us in: "You might reasonably think that the decipherment of the Maya script would have been greeted with open arms by the archaeologists. Not a bit of it! The reaction of the digging fraternity (and sorority) to the most exciting development in New World archaeology this century has been...rejection... they simply believe it is not worthy of notice (at least overtly).... Even if we card-carrying diggers bothered to learn how to read the texts, they wouldn't say anything of importance, and our valuable time would be wasted." [25] The Book of Mormon finds itself in good company, as a text not thought worthy to even read in order to judge it.

Ocean Routes

Another area promising interesting research is the study of ocean currents. In the past, many Mormon enthusiasts displayed all sorts of lavish and almost incredibly stupid parallels between the Old World and New World. Critical studies from both non-Mormons and Mormons justifiably cried out for more serious and careful research. Today that call is being met, though unappreciated by the critics or just ignored. The Mormon studies are breaking new ground for anyone interested in the parallels and ties with the Old and New Worlds, and in many other lands than just those having to do with the Book of Mormon. [26]

Mormon scholars have, from time to time, analyzed ocean crossings, from J.R. Smith's article "The Book of Mormon in the Light of Recent Jewish Archaeological Research," to C. Douglas Barnes "Lehi's Route to America." [27] Smith concentrated on aspects of ancient Jewish seafaring in his 1931 article, and interestingly, the subject has recently been thoroughly examined and updated by Raphael Patai. [28] Barnes used the most current research up to hi day in 1939 and found nothing improbable about Lehi coming across the Pacific Ocean in his ship because the ocean currents are correct which was recently reassessed by F.A.R.M.S. in 1986, with emphasis on our current knowledge of winds and ocean currents. It is very plausible for oceanic crossings even of two oceans, the Indian and the Pacific, in a plausible period of time as the Book of Mormon mentions. [29] Barnes noted Polynesian traditions about ancient ocean going ancestors. This has been shown to be very plausible in light of the Book of Mormon tradition of a certain Hagoth and his oceanic voyages. [30] What this research suggests is that the Book of Mormon helps establish ancient oceanic crossings. John Sorenson, the prominant Mormon antrhopologist, as far back as 1955, mentioned the traditions by the native Americans of their ancestors having arrived in the New World from the sea. [31] Cyrus Gordon, the Semitic and Ancient Mediterranean and Near East scholar, was telling Mormons in the 1970's how many findings were beginning to show that the Book of Mormon was another part of a bigger picture which scholars were beginning to recognize. The ancients were not just a bunch of wild primitives chopping each other up with stone axes, but had sophisticated travel equipment, including maps, compasses, and ships, and used these instruments to cross the seas. [32]

In the 1970's Franklin Harris III, along with Kirk Magelby, also catalogued many of the Native American legends telling the Spaniards they had originally come from across the sea. [33]

Fauna and the Book of Mormon

Another difficulty which B.H. Roberts expounded on in his day for the Book of Mormon and Old World - New World connections, was that the horse, asses, oxen, cows, etc., were not in America during Book of Mormon times, though the book commits these animals to being here. He concluded: "And now what are the conclusions of those who speak with recognized authority of the fauna of the New World? Unhappily they are unanimously against us." [34]

Today we've refined and enhanced our skills at detecting clues to contacts and cultural diffusion. Archaeology moves on which clearly demonstrates Hugh Nibley's contention as he was answering so many criticisms against the Book of Mormon (and hence against diffusion) critics concerning archaeology. "...we must be on gaurd against taking the argument od silence too seriously. The fact that we don't find a thing in place need not be taken to prove that it was not there. Since the record is never complete, Woolley reminds us, 'the archaeologist.... never has the last word.' The Islamic people, for example, made no use of the wheel and the cart, but that does not prove that wheels and carts were unknown to them, for they were in constant contact with people who used them." [35]

The horse is an excellent example. Even before Roberts' time Mormon scholars were trying to figure out the enigmatic horse in the Book of Mormon and Ancient America. Fred J. Pack noted how recent geological and archaeological finds by scientists definitely established that the horse was on this continent before the Spanish came along. In his assessment, the Book of Mormon was not so far off in saying the peoples had this animal. [36] Rasmus Michelsen wrote a study in 1933, the year Roberts died, concerning the animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon and being here in the New World. He wrote how the La Brea tar pits were yielding up skeletons of mammoths, horses, sheep, goats, etc. While the ancient dating of the horses caused a problem, the other animals were clearly attested he felt. [37]

Still further refined studies were made as the Smithsonian was bombarded with questions about its using the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide book, which they did not do. They gave ten reasons why the Book of Mormon cannot be archaeologically sound. But in years after the statement was written, still further discoveries were made which in turn demands further refinement of even the Smithsonian's understanding of the archaeological, anthropological and linguistic aspects of the flora and the fauna in the New World and Book of Mormon. [38] It cannot be overemphasized that "Cultural items do not spread automatically or inevitably even when people are aware of those items... the mere lack of certain shared elements in two areas in no way rules out the possibility that there were contacts between them." [39]

Another assumption which was at work in Roberts' day was that all the authorities were unanimous in their conclusions. Today this is not nearly the case as James R. Christianson demonstrates in his analysis of the Bering Strait and when certain kinds of animals died off. [40] We also may be reading our modern ideas into an ancient text assuming that what we call a horse, was also referred to by ancient peoples. We all know what a horse is, but what about anciently? Dr. Sorenson has shown archaeological specimens from Mesoamerica having humans riding on the backs of animal figures, some of which are evidently deer, while Mayan languages used the term "deer" for the Spanish horses and "deer-rider" for horsemen! [41] The names translated in English as horse, cattle, goat, do not necessarily refer to the species which spring to our minds upon reading the terms. The Spanish called our buffalo "cow" while the Delaware indians called the European cow by their name for deer; and the Miamis labeled their sheep taman, which roughly translates out as "cotton-you-can-eat." Bishop Landa considered the brocket deer of Yucatan a 'kind of little wild goat.' He also noted that the tapir had the size of a mule but a hoof like an ox, yet a Spanish name given to it translates as "once-an-ass!" Terminology is a very complex thing. [42]

Sorenson also notes that the mastadon and elephant may not be such a large problem as we have been told. The mastadon has been dated to within 4000-100 B.C. in America from the Great Lakes to Florida. The North American Indians had legends of great stiffed-legged beasts who could not lay down, with a fifth appendage coming out of its head. The Book of Mormon animals cumom and curelom may have been elephants or mastadons. They are mentioned only in the Book of Ether, and their names were not translated into Nephite languages, which suggests they were probably extinct by Nephite times. The giant ground sloth may be another candidate for one of these animals. [43] Hugh Nibley noted long ago that there are many animals mentioned in ancient records which we haven't got a clue as to their identity. He noted that Marco Polo, speaking of the people of Kobian, named two items in their possession; accarum, and andanicum, of which he left untranslated. No one knows what these things were. It is in the written records which testify of their existence, not the actual discovery. The Book of Mormon mentioning just such unknown animals is a strong indicator that it is a recording of genuine events. [44] Along with these animals, the cow, horse, ox, goat, wild goat, sheep, and dog have all been shown to have genuine candidates here in the New World, though sometimes, not as the animals we picture in our minds. "Dogmatic dismissal of the Book of Mormon on the grounds that its statements about fauna are unsupportable will not do anymore." [45]

Mongolians: The Race Issue

Scholars have, in the past, overlooked the complexity of the Book of Mormon, even though the book itself does not oversimplify issues. On a second look, the Mongolian issue that critics have brought up in past times, has taken on new dimensions as further studies have come to light in our day.

Something consistently overlooked with the issue is that the Mongolian spot at the base of the spine is not limited to the Mongolians. Caucasoids also have it, as other races have the epicanthic fold and the shovel-shaped incisor teeth. [47]

If all the indians came from Asia while the Book of Mormon claimed they came from Israel, then there would be a problem. Yet the Book of Mormon nowhere claims that the Nephite Jews are the only people here on the continent. Not does the Book of Mormon prevent others from coming here from any part of the rest of the globe. Another erroneous assumption is that all the indians in the New World must be either Lamanite or Nephite. According to John Sorenson, David A. Palmer, and the new refined consensus, the Book of Mormon events took place in only a limited area of the Americas, namely Mesoamerica. Other peoples could have easily been in this hemisphere without the Book of Mormon peoples knowing about them. The book itself is specific people oriented book, which doesn't deal with everyone on the continent. As Sorenson points out, it is a lineage history, not a comprehensive one of everyone and everything in the New World.

Hugh Nibley pointed out that the "old doctrinaire cocksureness that once characterized discussions of Indians origins" have given way to more careful and thoroughly researched perspectives. One to note is that of Carlton Beals, who deals with blood-types. "Few Indians of South America [and even less of North America, according to Beals] have even 1 percent of B blood, and most have none at all - though this is the most important and characteristic non-O ingredient of Asia... Here is a mystery that requires much pondering and investigation." The indians, that is, who are supposed, as we all know, to have come from eastern Asia, do not have the Asiatic blood-type. [49] He also notes that A.A. Anguiano contests that among our Indians are also mongoloids, negroids, Southern European types, giants (Patagonians) pigmies (Venezuela and Brazil). Many anthropologists consider it impossible to trace all these types to a single Bering route from Asia. Nibley notes further that G.A. Matson says the American indian blood-types are dominant in type O. Yet some tribes, like the Blackfeet are almost 100% type "A" as are the Hawiians. Mongolains are almost exclusively type "B" which is exceedingly rare among the Native Americans. "The issue has been carefully avoided." [50]

Ivan Van Sertima has noted the many close resemblences with Negroids, and Phoenicians as well as Semitic peoples in the Americas. [51] This evidence is becoming so powerful that a few have begun to notice it, even though most criticisms about this supposed problem with the Book of Mormon still deal with it from B.H. Roberts' day instead of keeping updated and informed with the latest cutting edge scholarship and research. [52]

The eminent Mexican physical anthropologist, Dr. Juan Comas, says Amerindians are not a biologically homogeneous group. [52] Earnest Hooten, from Harvard, saw bodily features in the New World that fit with Palestine quite comfortably. [53] The Polish anthropologist Andrzej Wiercinski, examining skulls noted many features of Chinese and Caucasoid, including Near East elements such as noses and beard which would remind one of the Yankee representation of Uncle Sam. He contended that there were chains of populations which were interrelated and not just mainly Mongoloid as anthropologists have contended in the past. [54] He believed that groups of migrants coming sporadically arrived in the ancient Americas from the Mediterranean area.

Robert Chadwick, who contends for the presence of ancient Europeans in the New World agrees with this Mediterranean view as well, feeling that the archaeological record supports the view of at least ancient Europeans in the ancient Americas.[55] Dr. Joseph Mahan, the Columbus Museum of arts and Crafts agrees that the times of dismissing anything of an Old World influence here in the New World are over. Flat dismissing of the evidence can't be done because it is becoming so abundant, though it is being accepted reluctantly. Why reluctantly? [56] Prof. Alexander von Wuthenau has documented many different facial types and characteristics from the Classical and Pre-Classical periods, showing, that like the Book of Mormon notes, many different peoples were here in the New World. [57] Ariel Crowley, a noted Mormon researcher, noted how Hitler actually did the world a service when he notified his top ethnologists to search out the origins for the Aryan master race, by tracing the Mongolian spot and epicanthic fold this demonstrated without doubt that its occurrence was in Germans, Irish, Russians, and English, and by no means are these features peculiar to the Mongolians only. [58]

Conclusion

While not being able to consider the Book of Mormon extensively here, we do note that it is no longer in the realm of fancy and bizarre imagination to consider contacts between the worlds. There is room for a realistic plausibility for small sporadic groups making their way to the New World. Some groups died out, others intermingled, as the Book of Mormon and antrhopological research now suggests. The thing to note now is the incorrect assumption that we can find a pur Nephite or Lamanite or even Indian or Jew as far as that goes.

The Book of Mormon patterns of seasonal warfare, festival celebrations at certain times of the year, religious gatherings, travels, kingship coronations, political turmoil as well as warfare, the keeping of records, natural calamities; all fairly demand to be looked into and which the Book of Mormon includes and does not oversimplify! It makes no mention of the noble red man, but does describe how various peoples lived and died, mixed their blood with other groups, wandered around vast areas, met other different peoples never known before, their repopulation after wars, migrations even out to unknown lands and seas to disappear from the pages of history. To keep track of all that would be an anthropologist's nightmare, and it may never be completed.

By ignoring the Book of Mormon, a text describing in intimate details all these features, and pretty much every facet of civilizations' existences, we may be ignoring a crucial piece of the evidence. In describing between-world contacts, patterns of warfare in the New World, fortifications, city building, efficient agriculture, metallurgy, craft specialization, trade, weaponry, living customs, religious attitudes and practices, we have a virtual bonanza for anthropologists and archaeological historians to work with in helping possibly sort out some issues in the New World history. It is time to take the Book of Mormon a bit more seriously.

Endnotes

1. Martin Harris' Visit With Charles Anthon: Collected Documents on Short-Hand Egyptian," FARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) STF-90, 1993.

2. Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Deseret Book, 1976, (pp. 2f, 49-55); Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," in the Improvement Era, January-March 1968.

3. Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hor: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham," in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, III, (Summer 1968): 110.

4. Jay M. Todd, "Egyptian Papyri Rediscovered," Improvement Era, January, 1968, pp. 12-16.

5. Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham, Deseret Book, 1969, p. 338.

6. Hugh Nibley, "Pearl of Great Price Papyri," FARMS, N-PEA, March 14, 1967, pp. 1-15.

7. John Gee, "References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts," in FARMS Insights: An Ancient Window, Sept. 1991; Gee, "Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," in the Ensign, July 1992, pp. 60-62.

8. Truman G. Madsen, "Mormonism as Historical," in Truman G. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism: Judeo-Christian Parallels, Vol. 4 in the Religious Studies Monograph Series, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1978, p. ix; Cf. Daniel C. Peterson, ed., Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, FARMS, Vol. 1, 1989, p. vi, wherein he notes Neusner said mainly the Book of Mormon has been held up for ridicule instead of study.

9. Daniel C. Peterson, "By What Measure Shall We Mete?", in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, FARMS, Vol. 2, 1990, p. ix.

10. Ibid., p. viii.

11. Ibid., p. ix.

12. Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites, Bookcraft, 1952; Since Cumorah, Deseret Book, 1967; An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book, 2nd edition, 1978, for the three main texts on the Old World authenticity of the Book of Mormon. A fairly recent effort was produced, Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Vol. 7 in the Religious Studies Monograph Series, BYU, 1982, as well as hundreds of articles and dozens of scholars from FARMS, from 1979-1994.

13. B.H. Roberts, "Book of Mormon Difficulties," in Brigham D. Madsen, ed., Studies of the Book of Mormon, University of Illinois Press, 1985, pp. 91f.

14. John W. Welch, "B.H. Roberts: Seeker After Truth," in the Ensign, March 1986, pp. 56-62; Truman G. Madsen, "B.H. Roberts After Fifty Years: Still Witnessing for the Book of Mormon," in the Ensign, December 1983, pp. 11-19; John W. Welch, "No Sir, That's Not History!", in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, Deseret Book, 1992, pp. 88-91; Cf. the definitive papers on whether Roberts lost faith in the Book of Mormon as critics claim, "Did B.H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon?" and "Finding Answers to B.H. Roberts Questions," FARMS, 1985. A substantial collection of all known statements made by B.H. Roberts about the Book of Mormon from June 1922 until his death in 1933 is the FARMS paper called "B.H. Roberts: His Final Decade: Statements About the Book of Mormon."

15. John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting For the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book, 1985, pp. 83ff; Cf. Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, Deseret Book, 1967, pp. 249f.

16. Carol R. Ember, Melvin Ember, Anthropology, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, 1973, pp. 450-453.

17. As quoted in Daniel C. Peterson's review of his book in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, FARMS, Vol. 2, 1990, p. 42.

18. Barry Fell, America B.C., Revised and Updated, Pocket Books, 1989, pp. 253-276.

19. Ivan Van Sertima, They Came Before Columbus, Random House, 1976, pp. 142-179.

20. Norman Totten, "Categories of Evidence for Old World Contacts with Ancient America," in Paul Cheesman, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1988, pp. 187-205.

21. John L. Sorenson, Ancient American Setting, pp. 74-81; Sorenson, "The Significance of an Apparent Relationship Between the Ancient Near East and Mesoamerica," in Caroll L. Riley, J. Charles Kelley, Campbell W. Pennington and Robert Rands, eds., Man Across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971, pp. 221-231, with hundreds of parallels, not just a few scattered dozen. On p. 229, footnote 4, he notes that the Maya day name manik, represented by a hand glyph, probably pronounced ka, corresponding in sequence to Hebrew letter "k", probably representing the hand, pronounced kaph. (Cf. Hebrew kaph "hand", with Yucatec kab "hand" or Mam kop "hand") following letter of the Hebrew alphabet is lamed; cf. next Yucatec Maya day name lamat (or Greek lambda; cf. TzentalZotzil lambat). Next is day name mulu which is ruled by shark and has the Aztec equivilant "water." Greek mu (from the Assyrian mu, water?), or Hebrew mem, is next in the alphabet sequence. I suggest the possibility that the Hebrew second month, Ziv, may relate to the third of the Yucatec Maya list, Zip. [Hebrew and Egyptian elements seem stronger than once thought between the two worlds.]

22. Paul R. Cheesman, "Cultural Parallels Between the Old World and the New World," in Paul R. Cheesman, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1988, pp. 206-217.

23. John W. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book, 1992, "Two Figurines From the Belleza and Sanchez Collection," pp. 18-20. Cf. FARMS, Update, January 1986, "Old World Languages in the New World," wherein it is noted that Prof. Otto Sadovsky discussed at length the revolutionary hypothesis positing a close relationship between the languages of Central California and Ob-Ugrian of Northwest Siberia, listing 10,000 cognate terms. Also mentions Dr. Mary Ritchie Key who shows the languages of Polynesia have distant historical connections with North and South American Indian languages. David H. Kelley also shows specific connections with Polynesian language elements and Uto-Aztecan.

24. Welch, Ibid.

25. Michael D. Coe, Breaking the Maya Code, Thames & Hudson, 1992, pp. 271f.

26. John L. Sorenson, "Instant Expertise on Book of Mormon Archaeology," in BYU Studies, Vol. 17, pp. 429-432, wherein he takes to task earlier archaeological trappings of Jack West, Paul Cheesman, and Dewey Farnsworth. He calls for more care and attention to detail and context with studies in the New World as well as using various scholars' texts. "The burden of repentance, I suggest, rest upon us all: on the reader who must be more critical and demanding of the writer whose work he buys, and on the writer who must be more critical and demanding of himself." Paul Cheesman seems to be the only one who has risen to this call and produced later works of considerable finer quality such as The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture, reviewed in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 1, 1989, pp. 18f; Jerald and Sandra Tanner wrote Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1969, wherein they had a ball with some of the far-out "kooky" [as John Sorenson calls it] research and claims of an earlier generation of Mormon scholars. But the Tanners have not kept up with the times and the current generation of scholars leading path-breaking new grounds for seriously entertaining world-wide connections anciently, are ignored, with the result that many other critical dealings with the subject have fallen into outdated, and useless trivia, such as Jim Spencer's criticisms in his texts Beyond Mormonism: An Elder's Story; Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately? Cf. Martin Raish, "All that Glitters: Uncovering Fool's Gold in Book of Mormon Archaeology," FARMS RAI-81. See also David S. King, "Proving the Book of Mormon: Archaeology Vs. Faith," in Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 24, #1, Spring 1991, pp. 143-146 wherein he noted that Thomas Stuart Ferguson, one of the earlier generation of Mormon archaeologists, wasn't so much incorrect in wanting to find evidence of Old and New World connections because he wanted the Book of Mormon demonstrated to be factually and historically correct, but he was incorrect in assuming a timetable to events leading up to the grand conclusion which would have to be accepted by all that there were connections between the Old and New Worlds. We still just don't have enough information to prove anything yet. We can suggest, enhance and illustrate, but never prove a point. See also William Hamblin's review of John Sorenson & Martin H. Raish's text Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 3, 1991, pp. 154-157, wherein he notes that surprisingly enough, there are over twice as many references to possible Jewish contacts (Hebrew contacts, 46; Israeli, 44; Jew, 30; total 120). "This helps us recognize that not every possible cultural parallel between the Old and New Worlds should necessarily be seen as directly relevant evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon." p. 155.

27. Smith in Improvement Era, July, 1931 pp. 522-523, 559-560; Barnes, Improvement Era, January, 1939, pp. 26-28, 49.

28. Raphael Patai, "Ancient Jewish Seafaring and River-faring Laws" in John M. Lundquist, Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also By Faith, essays in honor of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 1, Deseret Book, 1990, pp. 389-416.

29. FARMS, Update, April 1986, "Winds and Currents: A Look at Nephi's Ocean Crossing."

30. Jerry K. Loveland, "Hagoth and the Polynesian Tradition," in BYU Studies, 17 (1976 Autumn), pp. 59-73.

31. John Sorenson, "Some Mesoamerican Traditions of Immigration By Sea" in El Mexico Antique, 8 December, 1955, pp. 425-437, reprinted by FARMS.

32. Cyrus Gordon, "Near East Contact with Ancient America" in the institute of Religion lectures, Oct. 9, 1970, pp. 1-8. Cf. his "Pre-Columbian Discoveries Link Old and New Worlds," in the Ensign, Oct. 1971, pp. 57-63, esp. pp. 60f for ancient ocean crossings.

33. Franklin S. Harris III, "They Collected Legends" in the Ensign, Feb. 1977, pp. 80-82; Kirk Magelby, "Four Peruvian Versions of the White God Legend" in the New Era, Dec. 1978, pp. 15-17.

34. Roberts, Studies in the Book of Mormon, p. 98.

35. Nibley, "The Archaeological Problem," in An Approach to the Book of Mormon, p. 376. Cf. his comments in "South American Temples" in the Ensign, Sept. 1972, pp. 47-49, wherein since nobody knows a whole lot about New World ancient life, and with such a dearth of written records, everyone was guessing like mad about the significance and meaning of the buildings, the carvings on the stone, their orientation, etc. See also John Sorenson, "Digging Into the Book of Mormon" in the Ensign, Sept. 1984, p. 30 where he states that the Book of Mormon is talking about lineages instead of nations in the modern sense. "But ruling lines are invisible to archaeology. And there's the rub. Neither the famous Hyksos dynasty in Bronze Age Egypt nor the much-discussed Toltec rulers of Mexico a millenium ago can be more than conjecturally matched with the ruins. The nature of archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence now available on Mesoamerica makes it difficult to identify specific groups, like a possible Nephi lineage, let alone individuals." There are still disputes over the identity of the Israelite invaders around Jericho in Joshua's time and earlier. No monument near the Jordan says "Israel crossed here." Instead we are forced to look for patterns of custom or settlement which seem to be related to something mentioned in the scripture. Cf. his Ancient American Setting, pp. 65-95, 232-238.

36. Fred J. Pack, "Revelation Ante-Dating Scientific Discovery - An Instance," in Improvement Era, Vol. X, No. 4, Feb. 1907, pp. 241-247.

37. Rasmus Michelsen, "Paleontology and the Book of Mormon" in Improvement Era, Jan., 1933, pp. 150-152.

38. John Sorenson, "An Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution 'Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon'". FARMS, 1982.

39. Ibid., p. 5.

40.James R. Christianson, "The Bering Strait and American Indian Origins" in Paul Cheesman, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture, pp. 218-236.

41. FARMS, Update, June 1984, "Once More: The Horse."

42. John Sorenson, "Digging Into the Book of Mormon," p. 19.

43. Sorenson, Ancient American Setting, pp. 297f; George Reynolds noted in his Dictionary of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Hyrum Parry, 1892, p. 81, that these animals were probably the mastadon, or even the Llama or Alpaca.

44. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, pp. 216-219. He also mentions how the camel and elephant were long thought to have not been in Egypt since its remains have not been found. But it is from the written record alone that we receive assurance that the Pharaohs as late as the XVIII Egyptian dynasty hunted elephants used by the war-lords in central Asia well into the Middle Ages, p. 217.

45. Sorenson, Ancient American Setting, pp. 298f.

46. Wally Tope, Why Should I Pray About the Book of Mormon When...?, Wallt Tope Ministries (no date given); Cf. Jim Spencer, Through the Maze, Newsletter, 1985 (no issue number or month given), p. 2, both of which display a lack of scholarly acumen when dealing with this issue.

47. Ember, Anthropology, p. 116.

48. Sorenson, Ancient American Setting, 1985; David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon From ncient Mexico, Horizon Books, 1981.

49. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, pp. x-xi.

50. Nibley, "The Book of Mormon and the Ruins: The Main Issues," FARMS, N-BMA, 1980, p. 3.

51. Ivan Van Sertima, They Came Before Columbus, Random House, 1976.

52. For instance, Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent of Man, Little, Brown and Co., 1973, recognized the problem of blood-typing pp. 91-93, and admitted that it certainly could have been small groups of people coming here at various times and multiplying, since the blood-types keep to themselves geneologically, i.e., if there is O type blood, the ancestors of the people with O type blood had O type blood and none other. Cf. Joseph Campbell, The Mythic Image, Princeton Univ. Press, 1974, demonstrating diffusion from India and China as well as Cambodia, pp. 76-183; Cf. Michael Toms, An Open Life: In Conversation with Joseph Campbell, Larson Publications, 1988, pp. 40-49; Frank Waters, Mexico Mystique: The Coming Sixth World of Consciousness, Swallow Press, Ohio University Press Books, 1975, pp. 168-175 for discussion of the origin of the Maya coming from the east in boats across the sea where the sun rises from, as well as their myths of the seven caves. Cf. Hugh Nibley, "Qumran and the Companions of the Cave," in Revue de Qumran, 5/2, 1965, pp. 177-198, for fascinating and complex stories from the Muslim and Dead Sea Scroll sources for ideas about the seven sleepers and the caves; James R. Christianson, "The Bering Strait and American Indian Origins," pp. 218-236; George F. Carter, "Before Columbus," in Keystone Scripture, pp. 164-186; Norman Totten, "Categories of Evidence for Old World Contacts with Ancient America" in Ibid., pp. 187-205; John Sorenson, Ancient American Setting, pp. 81-91; Sorenson, "An Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon" p. 3; Charles Gallenkamp, The Maya, Viking Press, 3rd Revised and Enlarged edition, 1985, pp. 40f for comment on the Book of Mormon incorporating the idea of Israelite migrations to America; Cyrus Gordon, "A Hebrew Inscription Authenticated," in By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, Vol. 1, Deseret Book, 1990, pp. 67-80 showing the Bat Creek Stone in America is an authentic Hebrew inscription from ancient times and from across the ocean.

52. Sorenson, Ancient American Setting, p. 88.

53. Ibid., p. 88

54. Ibid., p. 88.

55. Ibid., p. 89.

56. Kirk H. Vestal, Arthur Wallace, The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, LL Company, 1981, pp. 112f.

57. Ibid., p. 112.

58 Ariel Crowley, About the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book, 1961, p. 144.

The truth of the matter is, my article was outdated as I wrote it. There have been incredibly informed and intelligent discussions on all aspects of the Book of Mormon, especially geography, Mesoamerican connections, archaeology, history, etc. Here I provide you with much more materials than was available just 4 years ago when I wrote this letter!

- Hamblin's review of Pre-Columbian Diffusion theories here

- John Clark's discussion of North American theory of the Nephites' land here

- Concerning Moses' Brazen Serpent and Serpent worship in Mesoamerica here

- Concerning Nephite and Book of Mormon population here

- John Sorenson's latest info. on his view of Mesoamerica as the Book of Mormon lands here

- Sorenson's critique of archaeology and North American pre-history here

- Diane Wirth's critique of North American archaeology and pre history of Americans here

- John Sorenson's views on others being in America when BofM peoples arrived here.

- possible correlations of geography in Mesoamerica with the Book of Mormon here

- William Hamblin shows the problems of anti-Mormons' use of archaeology as a club to beat the BofM with here

- John Tvedtnes and Stephen D. Ricks article on Reformed Egyptian language and Hebrew language in the BofM here

- John Gee demonstrates that the Shawbti figures I discussed in this letter to the editor have turned out to be forgeries here

- more discussion on BofM geography and archaeology here

- More on BofM geography here

- BofM geography issues here

- discussion of Messiah in ancient America here

- discussion on BofM history, archaeology, language etc. here

- BofM geography issues discussed here

- discussing Christianity in America before Columbus? here

- discussing indian origins and the BofM here

- Maya Harvest Festivals and the BofM here

- Mesoamerica and the BofM issues here

- warfare in the BofM both from Old World perspectives and New World ones here

- warfare in the BofM, ancient parallels here

- geography of BofM issues here

- Pre-Columbian contact with the Americas discussed here

- discussion of indian origins and BofM ideas here

- discusses some problems of the Tanner's approach to archaeology and the BofM here

- More on BofM geography here

- The Book of Mormon in Ancient America discussed here