The Heated Debate Over BOM Geography

For those involved in the current debates on Book of Mormon geography and the location of the Land of Promise, a debate, by the way, that has been going on since the 1940s, and among many, has never died down, the recent lead article of the “Mormon Times,” might be of interest. This supplement is mailed with the Deseret News to those subscribers who live outside the state of Utah.

The Saturday, May 20, 2010, issue of “Mormon Times,” was sent to me this week from a friend in Oregon. The front-page heading is: "The fight over Book of Mormon Geography" with two issues—Northeast United States and Mesoamerica shown in the illustration. Within the article, it reads: "Inside: Strengths and weaknesses of Book of Mormon geography theories are examined." Interestingly enough, South America or the Andean area, is mentioned only once and only in passing, and is not even considered as a theory of BOM geography.

While knowing where the Book of Mormon Land of Promise was located is not a “salvation” issue, it is of interest to a large percentage of members who have been inundated for most of the past century that the location was in Mesoamerica. But since the area throughout Central America does not meet or match the many statements of scripture about the Land of Promise, many have become disenchanted with the model of these theorists and, in fact, there is much anti-Mormon comments all over the internet and in discussions, because Mesoamerica has been sold hook, line, and sinker to the vast majority of LDS theologians, which cannot be supported by fact or scripture and, therefore, opens the church to such ridicule from these sources.

Yet the Mesoamerican Theorists, who cannot in any way support their view or model through even the majority of scriptural references to the subject, continue to hammer away at their beliefs, even to the changing, altering or ignoring of scripture (see numerous earlier posts on this subject).

I realize that people of conscience and thought can disagree on a lot of issues--but to deny the opportunity for people to know there is a valid, scripture-backed, historical supported area other than Mesoamerica to be considered, is beyond my comprehension. I have a library of over 20 books written on this subject (Mesoamerica, Great Lakes, Baja California, etc.) and most contain the most fanciful thinking imaginable and basically without scripture support.

My book, “Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica,” is right in time for this discussion--a discussion for most that is far afield in many areas from actual scripture, which my book, and the two companion books: “Who Really Settled Mesoamerica,” and “Inaccuracies of Mesoamerican and Other Theorists,” answer in great detail, all backed up with scripture reference and statements.

I think it is a real disservice to those who are interested, especially to those who have knowledge of the scriptures, to maintain a Mesoamerican model in light of all the controversy surrounding this model and the lack of scriptural support for its existence.