Benjamin Winchester advertises his book for sale in the September 15, 1842 edition of the Times & Seasons newspaper.

BYU law school graduate and former JAG Attorney Jonathan Neville would extend the line of suspects in the case of the anonymous Times and Seasons extract articles. We’re talking about the unsigned newspaper publications which sought to bolster belief in the Book of Mormon, by drawing upon John Lloyd Stephens’ 1841 bestseller Incidents of Travel in Central America. The anonymous newspaper pieces appropriated Stephens’ work in ways that the renowned traveler would not have approved. The inconsistent articles appeared in the Mormon newspaper in the fall of 1842, and have been relied on ever since by Mormons (LDS and Community of Christ) to justify exotic geographic settings for the Book of Mormon.

Understand that no expert of nineteenth century American Literature sees these latecomer newspaper articles as authoritative for placing the literary setting of the Book of Mormon (1830). Mainstream American History and Literature scholars place the Book of Mormon in the Mound Builder genre of Joseph Smith’s own time and country. (Silverberg, Robert, “…and the mound-builders vanished from the earth”, American Heritage Magazine, Vol. 20, Issue 4, June 1969; The Mound Builders, 1970; Garlinghouse, Thomas S., “Revisiting the Mound-builder Controversy”, History Today, Sept. 2001, Vol. 51, Issue 9., pg. 38)

Only Mormons, especially those tied to member-media sales and/or tours, make a big deal of the unsigned newspaper articles. The controversy between members over the unsigned articles has grown so contentious that parties from the Mormon Mesoamerican interest have resorted to pseudoscientific writing analysis arguments to try and keep their following.

Neville clearly sees that the authentic setting for the Book of Mormon is in Mound Builder North America. He is currently invested in the exaggerated Heartland geography model, which stretches LDS Doctrine and Covenants 125:3 to sell the idea that the Book of Mormon’s land of Zarahemla is in Iowa, across the Mississippi from Nauvoo.

At the business end of his article, Neville accuses Mormon renegade Benjamin Winchester of authoring the Incidents of Travel in Central America extract pieces. Neville argues that Winchester was in league with the Prophet’s temperamental brother, William Smith.

Winchester silenced from preaching! Times & Seasons’ NOTICE, May 16, 1842.

At the time the unsigned articles appeared, Apostle William Smith was in charge of publishing the secular Nauvoo Wasp - using the same printing office facilities as the Times and Seasons. Benjamin Winchester had previously started his own newspaper called the Gospel reflector, based in Philadelphia. Winchester had published articles about the Book of Mormon which drew on Josiah Priest’s American Antiquities for backup.

Could Winchester have had something to do with the unsigned Incidents of Travel in Central America extract articles too?

Winchester pardoned, but told to get out of town! Times & Seasons, July 15, 1842; the same issue featuring Joseph Smith’s largely unappreciated “American Antiquities” editorial.

Neville is certain he has found the “Smoking Gun(s)” linking the unsigned 1842 articles with the 1841 writings of Benjamin Winchester. Neville critically refers to Winchester’s March, 1841 Gospel reflector articles as “Mesoamerican promoting articles”. This is a somewhat misleading description of their content. Neville makes it sound like the quasi-limited Mesoamerican model started with the unsigned T&S articles, and that “the Mesoamerican theory of Book of Mormon geography” exists in the LDS Church today “All because of one Benjamin Winchester”. Neville’s claim is not accurate.

The quasi-limited Mesoamerican model wasn’t born until twentieth century members of the RLDS church turned their back on Joseph Smith’s Cumorah (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 128:20) and inaugurated their own high place in southern Mexico close to Stephens’ famed discoveries. The scriptural location of Cumorah is given in one of the Prophets’ revelatory epistles on “baptism for the dead”, a practice which the RLDS (Community of Christ) church abandoned. (You will find early twentieth century RLDS articles referenced in Promised Lands)

Foolish but influential LDS (e.g. Thomas Fergusson) inhaled the Mexican Ramah (Hebrew for “high”, Ether 15:11) – and startled peddling it in subtle ways to the LDS community. (Hunter, Milton R. and Ferguson, Thomas Stewart, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon, pp. 144-45, 185, Fourth Printing, 1957)

I use the term “quasi-limited” because any Book of Mormon geography hypothesis that has Moroni traveling thousands of miles to deposit the Book of Mormon plates, does not qualify as a truly limited geography. The Near Cumorah setting in Joseph Smith’s boyhood countryside is the only truly local, or limited setting for the Book of Mormon.

Yes, the unsigned “ZARAHEMLA” article (T&S, October 1, 1842) announced (in disregard of the anachronism) that Quirigua’s ruins are those of the Book of Mormon city of Zarahemla, but it’s not because the unsigned article was promoting anything like a quasi-limited Mesoamerican geography.

There is abundant evidence that the ones responsible for the unsigned articles were in fact advocating a hemispheric geography. The distinction between the Book of Mormon “small neck of land” called “the narrow pass” , “the narrow neck” and “the narrow strip of wilderness” was lost on them. It was easy to get confused about the “small neck of land” (Alma 22:32), which they supposed was Panama’s Isthmus of Darien. Was the “small neck of land” the same as “the narrow strip of wilderness” (south of Zarahemla, Alma 22:27)? If so, maybe Zarahemla could be north of the Darien Isthmus – in Central America. It wasn’t because they thought Book of Mormon lands were all localized in Central America! No - they still had Lehi landing in South America, and the Nephite nation’s last stand in western NY. (Cumorah! Not Quirigua)

The Prophet’s signed letter to the Church, written while he was in hiding, indicating the Finger Lakes location of Cumorah, was in fact published in the same issue as the dubious “ZARAHEMLA” article. John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, in charge of the Times and Seasons, apparently didn't see any problem with having Zarahemla in a Mesoamerican jungle, and Cumorah thousands of miles away in western NY.

Years later, after it became scripturally clear to the brethren that Zarahemla had to be south of “the narrow neck of land”, they turned their support to reinstated Apostle Orson Pratt’s hemispheric model which placed Zarahemla south of Panama in South America. (See the footnotes to the 1879 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon, e.g. Alma 22:31, pg. 303, footnote 2q)

It should be clear then that John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff did not betray the Prophet Joseph Smith when they later dismissed the Central American  “ZARAHEMLA” idea (advanced in the October 1, 1842 T&S article) in favor of Elder Pratt's South American “Zarahemla”. Why? Because Joseph Smith did not write or endorse the unsigned “ZARAHEMLA” article. The unsigned article was nothing more than a piece of provocative press!

The fact that a Church approved edition of the Book of Mormon would promote a South American “Zarahemla” in it’s speculative footnotes, is also  strong evidence that Joseph Smith never taught that the Book of Mormon’s Zarahemla was in Iowa. By contrast the early brethren all knew where Cumorah was! (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 128:20)

Now it’s no surprise that archaeological evidence of Mound Builder settlements can be found all along the Mississippi. (E.g. the Mississippi Culture) Finding Mound Builder artifacts near the Iowa Mormon settlement (Lee County, Iowa Territory,) across Old Man River from Nauvoo, does not prove that the settlement was named with anything more than a divinely approved namesake. There was “Zarahemla Hill” (not named in the Book of Mormon) located opposite Nauvoo, on the Iowa side of the river. (Joseph Smith Diary, recorded by Willard Richards, The Words of Joseph Smith, compiled by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, pg. 173.)

One of the first persons to propose that the Saints locate in Iowa was a Dr. Isaac Galland. It’s also likely that the name “Zarahemla” was proposed by someone just as mortal as Dr. Galland. The idea of establishing a settlement in Iowa and naming it “Zarahemla” then became approved  by revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith. (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 125:3)

Unto what shall we liken the Iowa “Zarahemla”? It is comparable to the Iowa Mormon namesake “Mount Pisgah”. (Deuteronomy 3:27, TEACHINGS OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCH – LORENZO SNOW, pp. 107-109)

Folks shouldn’t expect the  Iowa “Zarahemla” to reside on the site of the Book of Mormon land of Zarahemla any more than than they should expect the Iowa “Pisgah” to be the Pisgah of the Bible.

One of the key things that makes both namesakes appropriate is their proximity to rivers.

As Jordan (westward from the biblical Pisgah or Mount Nebo) had to be crossed by Israel in order to enter the Promised Land; so a river (actually more than one) west of Iowa’s "Mount Pisgah" had to be crossed by the early Latter-day Saints in their exodus from Nauvoo. (Deuteronomy 3:27-28)

As northward flowing Sidon is east of the Book of Mormon Zarahemla, so the southward rolling Mighty Mississippi is east of the Iowa Mormon settlement “Zarahemla”. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie was mindful of scriptural details indicating the general direction of Sidon’s flow. (The river SIDON Scriptural IQ Test) Going along with what was once the mainstream hemispheric geography, many of the brethren held the unfounded opinion that Sidon was Colombia’s northward flowing Magdalena River. (1879 LDS edition, Omni 1:13, pg. 155, footnote h, Alma 2:15, pg. 238, footnote g; see also CHOICE ABOVE ALL OTHER LANDS, Chapter 3, “Brethren Speculate”)

The fact is, the Church approved 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon with Orson Pratt’s footnotes, did more to geographically mislead the Saints than any of the unsigned T&S articles! Tempering this statement is the fact that one can trust the 1879 edition footnotes that are truly deduced from scripture. For example Ether 15:8-11, pg. 606, footnotes c, d and e identify “the waters of Ripliancum”, north of Cumorah, as “Lake Ontario”. See LDS Doctrine and Covenants 128:20.

Intentional or not, the term “Book of Mormon Geography” has been used for decades in a way that dodges the real issue. The issue is really about covenant lands of the LORD, and the heritage, and identity of his people Israel. It may be only a geographic controversy to Gentile minded Mormons, but it certainly wasn't meant to be a mystery in scripture. (1 Nephi 13:30, 2 Nephi 10:10-12, 19, Ether 2:9-12, LDS Doctrine and Covenants 10:49-51) Quasi-limited Mesoamerican and South American geographies should be seen for what they are; an unwitting betrayal, if not a kind of covenant land identity theft.

But a quasi-limited geography is not what Benjamin Winchester had in mind!

If Winchester was promoting a “Mesoamerican” setting for the Book of Mormon, he was also definitely promoting a North American Mound Builder setting, and a South American setting all at the same time. Winchester was promoting a hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon – one that took in North and South America!

A hemispheric setting for the Book of Mormon might seem obtuse, but that’s what was in the minds of many early Latter-day Saints, including several church leaders – and it didn’t start with Benjamin Winchester.

Young Mormon missionary Orson Pratt was the first on record promoting this kind of exaggerated geography for the Book of Mormon. Pratt promoted the hemispheric geography idea as early as 1832. (Roper, Matthew, “Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations”, section titled “Hemispheric Interpretations of Book of Mormon Geography”, Note 6, BYU Maxwell Institute, 2004)

Why would someone as sharp as Orson Pratt advocate such an outlandish geography? The reasons are simple:

(1) Almost nobody in the early Church paid attention to Book of Mormon details about distances between places – in fact there were things about the Book of Mormon that essentially the whole Church “treated lightly”. (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 84:54-59, Enos 1:10)

Sure it was known that Cumorah was in the Finger Lake's region of western NY, south of Lake Ontario and east of Lake Erie, but looking on a globe, or at a map of the Western Hemisphere, the “small neck of land” or “narrow neck of land” has to be at Panama - right? I mean, is there anything at all near Cumorah, in Joseph Smith’s boyhood state of NY that qualifies as “the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20)? I mean Lake Erie doesn’t have anything to do with dividing the Niagara Isthmus – does it? Ok, well a lake or inland body of water would never be referred to as a “sea” in scripture – would it? (Joshua 15:5, 12, Ether 2:7)

(2) At any rate, it must have felt right in Elder Pratt’s missionary heart, to broaden the setting of the Book of Mormon to include the various native peoples of the whole Western Hemisphere. LDS scripture never made this claim – nor did scriptural details support it.

There was no consensus on hemispheric geographies in the early days of the Church, at least not like there would be (i.e. the footnotes of the 1879 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon – withdrawn at a later day). But there were others who thought (or felt) like Orson Pratt. This brings us back to missionary minded (big missionary hearted) Benjamin Winchester.

Benjamin Winchester’s Gospel reflector articles make no explicit mention of John Lloyd Stephens or his Central American discoveries. WHAT? That’s right! Benjamin Winchester refers to other sources like Josiah Priest’s American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West.

Priest, dwells at length on North American Mound Builder antiquities, but also dips south (in his work), to describe discoveries in Mexico and Central America – those fabulous “hewn stone” ruins that the Book of Mormon never mentions. So how can Winchester’s 1841 Gospel reflector articles be the basis for the unsigned 1842 Incidents of Travel in Central America extract articles? Well, as Neville has found, there are some similarities between the articles.

Are the similarities compelling enough to prove that Winchester is the lone hand behind the unsigned T&S articles, and that William Smith, alone, had to have conspired with him to get the articles printed during Joseph’s public absence? No! It’s entirely possible that the unsigned T&S articles were influenced by Winchester’s earlier articles to the point of even repeating certain words, phrases and concepts.

Contrary to the case that Neville seems to want to make, it’s likely, that Apostles John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (in charge of the Times and Seasons) had something to do with the anonymous articles.

Here are the facts:

(1) There is no mention of John Lloyd Stephens or his Central American discoveries in Winchester’s March 1841 Gospel reflector articles.

(2) There is no mention of John Lloyd Stephens or Central American ruins in William Smith’s Nauvoo Wasp – not even a secular reprint like the one published by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (following the official resignation of Joseph Smith as Editor). See “RUINS RECENTLY DISCOVERED IN YUCATAN MEXICO”, Times and Seasons, November 15, 1842. This interesting article was printed by Elders Talyor and Woodruff without a puff of LDS commentary. (CHOICE ABOVE ALL OTHER LANDS, Appendix)

(3) The earliest mention in the Times and Seasons of Stephens’ and Catherwood’s discoveries in Central America is in a reprint from the New York Weekly Herald published June 15, 1841 (coincidentally the same date as the last issue of Winchester’s Philadelphia Gospel reflector). Don Carlos Smith was the T&S editor at the time. The article entitled “AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES-MORE PROOF OF THE BOOK OF MORMON” begins with the following commentary:

“We feel great pleasure in laying before our readers the following interesting account of the Antiquities of Central America, which have been discovered by two eminent travelers … which prove beyond controversy, that on this vast continent, once flourished a mighty people, skilled in arts, sciences, and whose splendor would not be eclipsed by any of the nations of Antiquity - a people once high and exalted in the scale of intelligence, but now like their ancient buildings, fallen into ruins.” (Cited in CHOICE ABOVE ALL OTHER LANDS, Chapter 4)

The wording of the article is somewhat similar to that found in a piece published previously in Winchester’s Gospel reflector, dated March 1841, pg. 106:

“We shall now proceed to prove; first, from various relics of antiquity, that America has been inhabited by an enlightened people, far in advance of the savage state of the red men of the forest …

Now when the antiquarian traverses the Western wilds, he has the privilege to behold the relics of a once enlightened nation, who understood arts and sciences to some extent. He there can walk upon the ruins of once magnificent cities abounding in wealth and prosperity, but now depopulated, and lying in heaps of massive ruins. And if he is onward with his researches – he gazes upon numerous forts, mounds, obelisks, and catecombs, which he marks with wonder and amazement. When he surveys the Southern part of North America – he there can feast his mind upon the works of antiquity until it is absorbed in contemplating the scenes of destruction that have come upon this nation of the dead, and leveled their cities in ruins. In Guatamala … the ruins of a once splendid, beautiful, and populous city, perhaps as ever was on the globe; (we allude to the city of Otolum near Pulenque) … America was inhabited by an enlightened nation anterior to its discovery by Columbus.”

It may be worth noting that Winchester here spells “Guatamala” (Guatemala) as Priest does, and not “Guatimala” as found in the unsigned articles, and in Stephens’ work. Winchester misspells “Palenque” in the quote above, but spells it acceptably elsewhere; as do Priest and Stephens.

You may have noticed that, like Joseph Smith and John Taylor, Winchester is prone to write long sentences. Long sentences and similar sounding, or borrowed, expressions are not enough to stick the unsigned articles on Joseph Smith’s apron, or on Winchester’s belt. (Lies, DARN LIES and STATISTICS!)

The similarities between the June 15, 1841 T&S commentary and Winchester’s March 1, 1841 Gospel reflector piece does not prove that Winchester wrote the “AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES – MORE PROOF OF THE BOOK OF MORMON” commentary published by Don Carlos Smith. Winchester’s earlier article could have influenced the wording, phrases and presentation of the T&S commentary - that’s all.

Joseph Smith’s signed 1842 editorials, drawing on Priest’s American Antiquities, are loaded with similar sounding expressions. This doesn’t prove that Winchester wrote these either. Compare for example, the Gospel reflector excerpt (above) with the following:

“If men, in 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, &c.-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; and they would find that those things that they are anxiously prying into were matters of history, unfolded in that book. They would find their conjectures were more than realized-that a great and a 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…-ED.” (“AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES”, T&S, July 15, 1842, Joseph Smith - Editor)

Note that Joseph Smith associates Mound Builder antiquities with the Book of Mormon and that he never actually says that Book of Mormon lands are to be found in Central America. American Antiquities suggests that peoples of Central America migrated there from “the regions of the now United States ... called the lake country.” (American Antiquities, "Traits of the Mosaic History found among the Azteca Nations", pg. 202)

(4) There are more documented publications and statements tied to John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff on the topic of Stephens’ discoveries, including statements promoting Stephens works as a guide to Book of Mormon cities, than can be pinned on forgotten Benjamin Winchester, brother-in-law to the Prophet. (CHOICE ABOVE ALL OTHER LANDS, Chapter 3, and Appendix; also Joseph Smith, Josiah Priest and the Times and Seasons)

Of course John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff accepted the scriptural location of Cumorah. They promoted Stephens’ works in the context of an erroneous hemispheric setting. They didn’t know better! They and the Saints in general could have paid more attention to scriptural details - as the Lord had warned. (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 84:54-59, Enos 1:10) They may have let missionary objectives get in the way of some scriptural facts. Their hearts were in the right place!

The closest thing to a localized Mesoamerican setting in the early days of the Church, may have been the geography evolved by Apostle John E. Page. Elder Page seems to have noticed from reading the Book of Mormon that its principal lands were fairly close together. Unfortunately, Page too became engrossed in the sensational discoveries described in Stephens’ bestseller.

Because the location of Cumorah was established through Joseph Smith, it’s likely that Page thought the Nephite people made a mass exodus from Central America to upstate NY, to take their final stand as a nation against their enemies. The scenario is similar to that described by Patriarch William McBride in 1881 at a prayer meeting at St. George, Utah. (CHOICE ABOVE ALL OTHER LANDS, Appendix, “An Instance of Mormon Apocrypha”; Gross Geographies)

Winchester listed as an agent in the June 15 and July 1, 1842 editions of the Times & Seasons.

5) The unsigned articles are just that - anonymous! Suppose Elder Winchester did draft something about Stephens’ discoveries and get it into the hands of Apostle Smith. We still don’t know who arranged, redacted and edited what in the unsigned articles. Stylometry statistics will not resolve this issue.

Let’s concede to Brother Neville that a link may exist between Agent Winchester (The T&S actually lists Winchester as an agent) and T&S features on the Boston show down, or debate between Dr. West and Elder Adams.

In “THE SMOKING GUN” article, Brother Neville states that these Boston newspaper articles show a “link between the Book of Mormon and archaeological discoveries”.  Yes, it was noted in “Joseph Smith Josiah Priest and the Times and Seasons” back in 2011, that one of the Boston show down features refers to Priest’s “American Antiquities, to prove that the aborigines were descendents of Joseph”. (“GREAT DISCUSSION ON MORMONISM BETWEEN DR. WEST AND ELDER ADAMS, AT THE MARLBORO’ CHAPEL”, Times and Season, August 1, 1842, pg. 864)

So let’s say that Agent Winchester (in disguise) was referencing Priest again; this time in one of the Boston show down pieces. So what! Winchester wasn’t the only member of the Church who had read Josiah Priest and thought things in American Antiquities proved the Book of Mormon. See for instance Thompson, Charles (also listed as an agent), EVIDENCE IN PROOF OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, published at Batavia, NY; and the T&S article, January 1, 1842; CHOICE ABOVE ALL OTHER LANDS, Appendix.

The Boston show down reprints started in the July 15, 1842 issue. This was the same T&S issue that featured Joseph Smith’s signed “American Antiquities” editorial, and the Winchester get-out-of-town NOTICE! It’s unlikely that co-conspirator William Smith was singularly responsible for printing the issue. I think the relationship between the Apostles in the printing office was more complex (even collaborative) than Neville wants the jury to understand. After all, it was the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that had been instructed to “take in hand the Editorial department of the Times and Seasons”. (Friday, January 28, 1842, History of the Church 4:503)

Neville alleges that “for reasons (which are discussed in detail in the book [Neville’s new book] he [Joseph Smith] couldn’t simply retract the articles [unsigned T&S articles]. But he [Joseph Smith] took action to mitigate their impact and prevent their reoccurrence.”

Prevent their reoccurrence? Does Neville not know about the unsigned “STEPHENS’ WORKS ON CENTRAL AMERICA” article published by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff? This article was published in the Times and Seasons on the anniversary of the unsigned “ZARAHEMLA” piece – exactly one year later! The anniversary article is as sensational and overreaching as the “ZARAHEMLA” piece. The 1843 article shoots beyond the mark of scripture and promotes Stephens’ written works to the Latter-day Saints as an essential guide to Book of Mormon cities. As far as we know, there was no William Smith sharing the printing office this time around. It’s evident that John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff had something to do with the unsigned article(s). (See NOTES) Brother Neville’s scapegoat case doesn’t quite fit the facts.

As for the true location of Zarahemla, Joseph didn’t explicitly tell the Church where the city of Zarahemla was. He told us enough. He told us where the land Cumorah is; and by so doing, he actually gave us enough information to determine the general whereabouts of the land Zarahemla – if we rigorously follow scripture. For example: Mosiah 8:8; 21:26, Mormon 6:4. The coastal land of Zarahemla and Cumorah were so near each other that a place near Cumorah in “a land among many waters” could be mistaken for Zarahemla.

The Lord had warned the Saints not to treat the Book of Mormon lightly. (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 84:54-59) Joseph left the Saints to choose between scripture and other sources – he left us to choose between silver and lead. Most members of the Church have chosen a little of both.

The ruin of hemispheric geographies   

Neville acknowledges that “Early church members speculated that the Book of Mormon events took place across the Americas.” But he oversimplifies and misrepresents hemispheric geographies when he says that; “The “narrow neck of land” had to be Panama, they guessed, while the Nephites lived in North America and the Lamanites in South America.”

Is Brother Neville willing to overlook the exaggerated geographies of esteemed brethren of the Church, because he thinks they had the Nephites all the while in North America? The North American Continent includes Central America!

There were a variety of exaggerated geographies proffered in the early days of the Church and they all didn’t settle on Panama as “the narrow neck of land”. (Gross Geographies)

The hemispheric geography church leaders settled on (temporarily - in the footnotes of the 1879 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon) had Nephite lands in South, Central and temperate North America. Neville makes a big smoke about Zarahemla not being in Central America, but seems to be willing to give esteemed brethren a pass when it comes to their placing Zarahemla in South America – assuming he knows they did.

The trouble with hemispheric settings for the Book of Mormon is that they’re not only incompatible with LDS scripture; they are inconsistent with the foremost antiquarian works of the nineteenth century – the very ones church members selectively cited. Why? It’s  because hemispheric geographies for the Book of Mormon did not originate with Joseph Smith or the renowned authors of his time. These exaggerated geographies were the well meaning extrapolations of other men (church brethren) who didn’t seem to catch (or favor) the vision that various native peoples of North and South America could be tied to the heritage of Book of Mormon peoples through migrations and intermarriage. Instead, they wanted the principal lands of the Book of Mormon to stretch over the vast Western Hemisphere to include all natives in all the places they call home.

Part of the problem with hemispheric settings is the fact that a large number Mesoamerica’s ruins date more recent than the Book of Mormon timeline.

In promoting a hemispheric geography, note how selective Winchester’s quotes are in giving the reader the impression that the ruins of Central American cities (Palenque in particular) are of great age:

“In surveying its ruins, the traveler is led to believe that it was founded at as early a period as the renowned cities of Egypt…

The antiquities of America spread from the great lakes of the North and West to Central America, and the Southern parts of Peru on the South; from the Allegheny Mountains on the East, to the Rocky Mountains on the West …” (“THE CLAIMS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON ESTABLISHED”, Gospel reflector, March, 1841, pg. 108)

 “Since our 'Extract' was published from Mr. Stephens' 'Incidents of Travel,' &c., we have found another important fact relating to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Central America, or Guatimala [Guatemala], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south.-The city of Zarahemla … stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma:-'… and thus the land of Nephi, and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water: there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.' [See Book of Mormon 3d edition, page 280-81.]” (Unsigned, “ZARAHEMLA”, T&S, October 1, 1842)

Compare with:

Lost, ruined cities in far away places:

Compare with: