Did Joseph Smith Teach a Limited, Tehuantepec Book of Mormon Geography?

Some Mormon scholars have pointed to an 1842 Times and Seasons article as evidence that Joseph Smith believed in a limited geography. There are two problems with this. First of all, the article was very probably written by John Taylor rather than Joseph Smith. And secondly, it is debatable to what extent the article actually promotes a limited geography. It quotes a lengthy excerpt from a book called Incidents of Travel in Central America, which is claimed as evidence for the Book of Mormon. At the end of the excerpt the author says that the Nephites "lived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found." This statement seems to indicate that the "narrow neck of land" described in the Book of Mormon is neither the isthmus of Panama nor of Tehuantepec, but embraces all of Central America. At the very least, this requires a much larger Book of Mormon geography than apologists have tried to read into the Book.

Jeff Lindsay recently put a somewhat different spin on this issue. Lindsay argued that because the 1842 editorial approvingly quoted a Toltec legend according to which the Toltecs were Israelite migrants from the time of Moses, this shows that Smith was open to the idea of “other migrations” to the New World besides those described in the Book of Mormon. But again, I think this is a misreading. The editorial actually takes the Toltec tradition as evidence of the Lehite migration, not of some “other” migration. The article says that the Toltec tradition comes “near the real fact”– i.e., the fact related in the Book of Mormon, that Lehi and his family were Hebrews who departed from the Red Sea and traveled to the Americas.

A second editorial in the Times and Seasons has been cited in support of a Tehuantepec geography, as well. The editorial says,

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, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land as will be seen from the following words in the book of Alma:-'And now it was only the distance of a day and half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful, and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; 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.]

William J. Hamblin has written of this excerpt, "Since the internal geography of the Book of Mormon places Zarahemla south of the narrow neck of land, the editorial implies that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, rather than Panama, was the Book of Mormon narrow neck of land." (JBMS 2/1, pp. 161-197). Actually, the editorial exhibits no awareness that the Book of Mormon "places Zarahemla south of the narrow neck of land." The mention of the isthmus of Darien (known today as Panama) actually implies that it, rather than Tehuantepec, was being identified with the narrow neck of land. Unlike Hamblin, the Times and Seasons editorialist did not have John Sorenson's geographic guidelines to work from.  Sorenson's guidelines should not be used as a lens through which to interpret nineteenth century leaders' statements about Book of Mormon geography.

These editorials may indeed reflect a view that Nephite civilization was more or less limited to Central America and its environs. However, there is no belief here in a specifically Tehuantepec geography, nor is there openness to "other migrations" to the Americas. Presumably, North and South America were still conceived as the lands northward and southward, and the natives of both continents were still assumed to be Lamanites. And however the editorials are to be interpreted, we also cannot assume that they reflect Joseph Smith's own views until some evidence of Smith's authorship can be adduced.