Thursday, May 11, 2017

Response to Why There Are No Book of Mormon Artefacts Found – Part II

Continuing from the previous post. As for its construction of the tower, Garsilaso de la Vega, who called himself “El Inca,” and was christened Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, de la Vega was the son of Captain Garcilaso de la Vega y Vargas, one of the members of the conquestadores of Pedro de Alvarado. El Inca’s mother was, Palla Chimpu Occlo, a member of the Inca royal family, granddaughter of the Inca emperor Tupac Inca Yupanqui [1471-1493], niece of Huayna Capac [1493-1527] and cousin of Atuahallpa and Huascar, whose battles ended the Inca Empire.
Garcilaso (left) and his parents 

    As a child and young man, Garcilaso moved freely between his parents separate households: they were not allowed to marry, and the boy mainly lived with his mother. Nevertheless, his father wanted Garcilaso to get a good education, and in Cuzco the boy was instructed in Spanish culture, Latin and the classics, under the tutelage of Father Juan del Cuellar. At the same time, Garcilaso learned the history, folklore and oral traditions of the Inca from his mother and uncles. At a fairly early age, he spoke both Quechua and Spanish. He later wrote extensively of the conquest, the Inca, and mostly of the heritage of the people of his birth. He left us extensive information about the Inca of his time, Sacsayhuaman and Cuzco, as well as what we now know as the ruins of the area. As an example, he described the tower as being built of stone, round, four actual floors inside, and a height that would equate to approximately 60 feet, with a covered overhead and a flat floor (or roof) on which one could stand and look all around the valley below. There were also descriptions given of the buttress foundation braces of stone, as well as stone aqueduct leading into the basement area of the tower for water storage. He even gave an exact location of it so that in the 1900s, it was located beneath a pile of debris that covered much of the hill behind the zig-zag walls—until then, not much credence was given to de la Vega, but when the tower was found exactly where he said it was, his overall descriptions of the fortress itself was considered to be authentic and thoroughly accurate.
A drawing from National Geographic that was made based on the information described by the early Spanish chroniclers and conquistadores who first invaded Cuzco. Note the white arrow pointing to the tower on the hill overlooking the city and valley 

    Thus, we can conclude that Noah’s tower had to be 1) built on a hill, 2) adjacent to a temple, and 3) adjacent to a small fort. And in fact, the tower at Sacsayhuaman is all three, matching the three anchoring points described in the scriptural record and historical record of the Spanish chroniclers. It should also be pointed out that Mormon’s description of “high” is supported by the word “great” as descriptions. The Spanish chroniclers used the terms “tall” and “great,” which sounds close enough to be another anchoring point.
    Garcilaso also wrote about the many rooms in the buildings and underneath, as well as complete descriptions of what was in them (mostly weapons and other military equipment), the underground tunnels in which he played with other children, as well as quite a bit about the overall complex of Sacsayhuaman overall.
Monumento Pachacuteq Yupanki—It is interesting that a tower commemorating Pachacutec, who helped make Cuzco into a large city during his reign, was built in 1991 directly after the description that Garcilaso used to describe the one on the hill next to the temple—like the former tower, this has five floors, counting the roof open-air viewing floor, which is also identical to the tower built by Noah. It is also interesting that the figure of the Inca on top looks toward Sacsayhuaman

    I will say this, if you are looking for something, anything, that is going to say without a doubt, that this was Book of Mormon artifacts, ruins, or whatever, I’m afraid you are going to be sadly disappointed, for two reasons: No ancient location to my knowledge has ever been found and located or identified without question by some people, except for a handful of Babylonian sites that had inscribed messages found in the foundation, since they were greater recorders of the achievement of their kings than anyone else of the ancient era except, perhaps, for the Chinese. The other reason, and this is my personal $0.03 worth—in my opinion, the Lord is not of a mind at this point in time to disclose such locations to man, if he had been he certainly could have done so without reservation to Joseph Smith at the time Joseph was translating the Plates, or anytime thereafter, but he did not. Evidently, what we discern on our own is going to have to suffice.
    For me, having studied this area for some 32 years now (Mesoamerica for nearly 30 years, and North America for the past 20 or so years), having seen most of what exists in Andean South America, as well as much in the Yucatan, Guatemala and Belize, charted out my own maps, locations, etc., coupled with, and most importantly based upon, the scriptural record and Nephi, Jacob, Mormon and Moroni’s rather clear descriptions, I have an unquestionably firm belief, of which I feel extensive verification from several means, to have been the landing site and location of the Land of Promise as illustrated in the scriptural record. In all of those 32 years, I have yet to run across any scriptural description that does not fit perfectly, and I do mean perfectly—which is not a word I bandy about—with the location of Andean Peru—and in all those years, there have been numerous obstacles to this location, or that I have run into, yet in every single instance, barring none, each and every single one has been either borne out, or a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation, usually based on the scriptural record, why there is no match evidence (such as a written language surviving in Nephite-Lamanite territory). During that time, though some explanations that have presented themselves have at first been met with some significant resistance, every single one over time has been borne out to be correct.
    Reader Comment: "However, you could bolster your case by going down there and demonstrating that your putative temple is patterned after an ancient Hebrew temple.”
    Response: What makes you think I haven't been down there? But more important, is what existed when the Spanish arrived and their historical record by several chroniclers, not what has existed in the past century or two. And what was found was a structure paneled inside with sheets of gold covering all the walls, which is how the temple in Jerusalem was built. There were life-sized gold figures, solid gold altars, with carved gold llama and other gold and silver animals and plants in the courtyards, and the outer walls were capped with gold. In fact, if Garcilaso can be believed, this temple was so magnificent in its glory and structure and magnificent costly construction before the Spanish dismantled everything and melted down the gold and gathered all the jewels, etc., and shipped everything back to Spain. So magnificent, it could only be called a "temple" by them
    Reader Comment: “You could also dig up old jars or containers that have wine residue. Etc. Something that's more than an old tower base and ruins on a hill. Just my $0.03” W.B.
    Response: It might be of interest to you to know that in all of the Western Hemisphere, there is only one place where the Hebrew Law of Moses practice of circumcision has been shown to have existed and that is ancient Andean Peru based on the numerous mummies that have been found and examined in numerous locations (wherever mummies have been preserved by the climate). These date to the Nephite period, but not earlier to the Jaredites period.
    Given all of this, I’m afraid I do not agree with your stated view of there being no evidence of Book of Mormon archaeology. At the same time, I readily admit that proving the archaeology to someone else, especially non-members and critics, is not likely ever to happen. Of course, my personal experiences connected to this work, would not mean the same to someone else than to whom they were given, and such is the type of work we are involved in.
Unfinished and yet unpublished work

    As for “anchoring points,” such, of course, is open to individual view, however, in my world, I have found that sometimes two plus two actually does equal four and nothing else. As a matter of fact, I have found 44 different scriptural references that deal with location in the scriptural record, and in all 44 cases, they relate to Andean South America. Of course, many points can relate elsewhere, but the most I have found relating to any one location other than all 44 to Andean South America, is that about a dozen relate to Mesoamerica, but mostly only a handful relate to other areas, even Malay, Africa, Caribbean, etc. can find some match to a few of the scriptural references. But it is significant that some of those 44 scriptural references are found nowhere else in the world, especially the Western Hemisphere, than Andean South America. While the famous quote from Sherlock Holmes is probably not as accurate as it might sound, in some cases I believe in the logical fallacy of “If you’ve eliminated all other possibilities whatever remains must be the truth.” Whether that works the way Sir Arthur Conan Doyle meant it, I don’t know, but in eliminating all the known suggestive locations for the Land of Promise, I have found only Andean South America remains, though I did not start out thinking that.
    As for “laughable specious assertions,” which means something is superficially plausible, but actually wrong—I welcome any information from you that shows anything we write is “wrong”—not just that you disagree with it, or believe it wrong, but can be shown by outside sources to be wrong (other than minor isolated points of view). On the other hand, truth is often “laughed at” by those who know not of which they write, or of the subject matter, but that is also part of what occurs when one is willing to set forth on a path less traveled. On the other hand, truth is truth no matter how much it is questioned and how often ridiculed—and that if what we write here is not yet known as truth, then truth will eventually prove that. On the other hand, we have yet to see anything that is written here does not bear itself out over time. In the past eight years, all that what we cover has shown time and again to be accurate. Still, that does not make everything correct. All that can be hopes it that what we write will cause someone to study and not just rely on opinion or belief. Truth is verified only when we study things out for ourselves and find the answers, even when they are not what we had set out to prove.


  1. Del, some of us do greatly appreciate your research, and support your conclusions. Even though the search for where the BoM took place in now over, there is still much research and study that can be done.

    So to keep your health up, if you are not doing this already, I recommend juicing vegetables six days a week. The normal American simply does not eat enough vegetables.

    I will tell you my plan of a green and a red drink with over 16 ingredients if you are interested. It helps me a lot -- I am sure I will probably never go to a dentist again, for one thing.

  2. You and my wife ought to get together on this collusion for my health :) Sure, I'm open to anything that will improve my health, learning and knowledge.


  4. Del I'm glad to see you are writing a new book. I think the 500 pagers are amazing but too much for most readers to absorb. The new book and videos are a great step toward making the truth about the Book of Mormon lands more accessible. It's amazing to me how people love the Heartland and similar books that are 90% pictures plus 10% erroneous suppositions. I'm with erichard-your work is incredible. Stay healthy and keep writing. I'd love to have a Book of Mormon commentary from you - covering every chapter of the Book of Mormon. (Just a small ask)