This requires a lot of unpacking of rhetorical baggage, but I think it's important to get to the bottom of the Mesoamerican theory. This kind of unpacking takes time and attention, which may be why no one has apparently done it in the past, but I'm tired of seeing the Mesoamerican nonsense slide by unexamined, and I think most readers of this blog are too.
One advantage of the citation cartel's approach is that every source you consult leads to the others; i.e., FARMS will lead to the Interpreter, which leads to the Maxwell Institute, which leads to BYU Studies, which leads to FAIRMORMON, which leads to BMAF, etc. They're interchangeable, and they're all listed as links on the bottom of the BOMC web page here. (Okay, I think BYU Studies is a cut above the others, but so far I've never seen an article in BYU Studies that offers any alternative to the Mesoamerican theory. If I've missed such an article, please send me the citation.)
I'll start with the FAIRMORMON entry because it epitomizes the "Mesoamerican seer" approach. Then I'll look at some other Mesoamerican seers.
Question: Where is the Hill Cumorah?
Joseph Smith never used the name "Cumorah" in his own writings when referring to the gold plates' resting place [classic example of begging the question; i.e., providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise]
David Whitmer is not told that the hill from which Joseph received the record was called Cumorah, but this usage seems to have nevertheless become common within the Church [Nevertheless? One of the Three Witnesses explains when he first heard the term Cumorah--from a heavenly messenger, before he had even read the manuscript--and the Mesoamerican seers think it is a contradiction that the term "became common" within the Church?]
When I was returning to Fayette, with Joseph and Oliver, all of us riding in the wagon, Oliver and I on an old-fashioned, wooden, spring seat and Joseph behind us; while traveling along in a clear open place, a very pleasant, nice-looking old man suddenly appeared by the side of our wagon and saluted us with, "Good morning, it is very warm," at the same time wiping his face or forehead with his hand. We returned the salutation, and, by a sign from Joseph, I invited him to ride if he was going our way. But he said very pleasantly, "No, I am going to Cumorah." This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant. We all gazed at him and at each other, and as I looked around inquiringly of Joseph, the old man instantly disappeared, so that I did not see him again.
Since the 1950s, opinion among Book of Mormon scholars has increasingly trended toward the realization that the Nephite Cumorah and the Hill in New York cannot be the same [The only thing more fun than an appeal to authority is an additional appeal to authority. This one is cleverly worded. Scholars are converging on the realization! It's no longer a matter of opinion, fact and analysis; it's a question of realizing the truth. IOW, if you disagree with these scholars, you just haven't realized that you're wrong. Another fun aspect of this one is "Book of Mormon scholars." The term, as used here, means "Mesoamerican seers." In my view, every member of the Church is, or can be, a Book of Mormon scholar. You certainly don't need a PhD, or any degree, to be a Book of Mormon scholar. In fact, once you put on the Mesoamerican lenses, you "can't unsee" Mesoamerica. Such closed-mindedness is the antithesis of scholarship.]
Here [at BYU] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise.
[If I had to pick out my favorite fallacy in this FAIRMORMON article, I think this would be the one. Nothing in Elder Oak's statement endorses Mesoamerica. In fact, if you combine Elder Oaks with Joseph Fielding Smith, the statement excludes Mesoamerica.
The whole geography issue boils down to this: you have to choose between the New York Cumorah and the Mesoamerican Zarahemla. You can't have both. Which means choosing between Joseph, Oliver and Whitmer on Cumorah vs. an anonymous and isolated 1842 article in the Times and Seasons on Zarahemla.
Here's another way to put it. I invite every member of the Church to choose between these.
Explicit descriptions of Cumorah in New York:
David Whitmer (1829)
Oliver Cowdery (1830)
Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII (1835), reprinted in Joseph's personal journal (1835), Orson Pratt (1840), the Gospel Reflector (1841), the Times and Seasons (1841), D&C 128 (1842), and the UK pamphlet (1844).
Explicit description of Zarahemla in Guatemala:
Anonymous article in the 1842 Times and Seasons, never mentioned or referred to again until the development of the two-Cumorah theory by scholars in the 1900s.
There are 13 geographical conditions required for the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah [This section is a classic in the canon of the citation cartel. Palmer wrote a book titled "In Search of Cumorah" in 1981. I bought a copy when it came out. Palmer also wrote the self-serving entry on Cumorah in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. He is cited by most Mesoamerican seers, so I'll address this here. You're going to love the "conditions" that are "required" by the Mesoamerican seers here. I'm not going through them in detail, just enough to give you the flavor.]
- near eastern seacoast [the text specifies no distance between Ramah/Cumorah and the sea]
- near narrow neck of land [the text specifies no distance between Ramah/Cumorah and the narrow neck of land (and notice that the Nephites never mention the narrow neck of land; it is found only in Ether 10:20)]
- on a coastal plain and near other mountains and valleys
- one day's journey south of a large body of water
- an area of many rivers and waters
- presence of fountains
- water gives military advantage
- an escape route southward
- hill large enough to view hundreds of thousands of bodies [The text doesn't require this, but in fact, from the top of the Hill Cumorah, you can see the city of Rochester 20 miles away. Oliver Cowdery refers to tens of thousands, which is consistent with the text. Certainly the mile-wide valley west of Cumorah, which Oliver identified as the scene of the final battle, is plenty big to accommodate this number of dead.]
- hill must be a significant landmark [just as Oliver described it]
- hill must be free standing so people can camp around it [as the New York hill is]
- in temperate climate with no cold or snow [complete fabrication, the product of the Mesoamerican lenses. Nothing in the text requires this. The climate is never described in the text, except it had "some seasons," which excludes Mesoamerica anyway. This common Mesoamerican argument is like saying the Apostle Paul could not have traveled in Turkey because he never mentions snow. Yet snow in Turkey is well known; I've been in a snowstorm in Turkey where Paul traveled.]
- in a volcanic zone susceptible to earthquakes [another complete fabrication that defies the text. See my post on fun with volcanoes]