Posted on 05/27/2010 6:44:33 AM PDT by Colofornian
The discussion on Book of Mormon geography was getting heated. Scholars gathered in Provo, Utah, to discuss their theories about where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place. Some placed the Nephite capital city Zarahemla in Mesoamerica, others in South America. Others argued for a setting in the American heartland.
The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attended the two-day Book of Mormon convention. Although he found the discussion interesting, he was obviously concerned that people were getting a little too worked up about their geographic theories. He decided to intervene.
The Book of Mormon geography conference was held at Brigham Young Academy on May 23-24, 1903. But the advice President Joseph F. Smith gave at that conference 107 years ago could apply equally to current disputes over Book of Mormon geography.
"President Smith spoke briefly," the Deseret News account summarized, "and expressed the idea that the question of the city (of Zarahemla) was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people; and he advised against students considering it of such vital importance as the principles of the Gospel."
More recently, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism described how "Church leadership officially and consistently distances itself from issues regarding Book of Mormon geography."
But the lack of an official position hasn't squelched interest. The subject attracts highly trained archaeologists and scholars and informed — and not-so-informed — amateurs and enthusiasts. Books, lectures and even Book of Mormon lands tours abound.
But something is rotten in Zarahemla — wherever it may be.
In the middle of what could be a fun and intellectually exciting pursuit similar to archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann's famous search for the lost city of Troy, there are accusations of disloyalty tantamount to apostasy.
In one corner is the more-established idea of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. This theory places the events of the book in a limited geographic setting that is about the same size as ancient Israel. The location is in southern Mexico and Guatemala. The person most often associated with this theory is John L. Sorenson, a retired professor of anthropology at BYU, and the author of "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" and a series of articles on Book of Mormon geography that ran in the Ensign magazine in September and October 1984. A new book, tentatively titled "Mormon's Codex," is in the process of being published.
In the other corner is the challenger, a new theory that places Book of Mormon events in a North American "heartland" setting. Like the Mesoamerican theory, it also is limited in area — but not quite as limited. Its symbolic head is Rod L. Meldrum and, more recently, Bruce H. Porter. Meldrum and Porter are the co-authors of the book "Prophecies and Promises," which promotes the heartland setting.
It wouldn't be hard to predict that some friction might come about from competing theories — that healthy sparring would occur with arguments and counter-arguments. But it has gone beyond that.
The source of the animosity comes from the heartland theory's mantra: "Joseph knew."
Joseph Smith made several statements that can be interpreted to have geographic implications. Proponents of a North American setting see these statements as authoritative and based in revelation. Mesoamerican theorists think that Joseph Smith's ideas about geography expanded over time and included approval of at least some connection to Central America.
To the heartlander, Joseph's knowledge about Book of Mormon locations is seen as proof of his divine calling and a testament to his being the chosen translator/expert of the book. Joseph didn't just know; he knew everything. This position, however, leaves little room for other opinions — or for charity.
"The way I look at Joseph Smith's statements is that he either knew or he didn't know. If he knew, he knew by revelation. And if he didn't know, you've got to ask yourself why he said the things that he said," Porter said. "If he didn't know, was he trying to show off? If he really didn't know, why was he telling people?
"My feeling is that Joseph Smith did not lie," Porter said.
If you don't agree with this line of reasoning, by implication, you think that Joseph lied.
"My authority is Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon," Porter said. "Most of your Mesoamerican theorists, their authority is John Sorenson and Matthew Roper. They picked those as their authority at the neglect of Joseph Smith."
Matthew P. Roper, a research scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute Of Religious Scholarship, naturally doesn't like this characterization. "They seem to be trying to elevate a question of lesser importance, Book of Mormon geography, to the level of the doctrines of the church," Roper said. "And even though they give lip service to things like they know the church has not given an official position, they turn around and say, 'All these people are dismissing Joseph Smith.' "
It is somewhat ironic that believing that Joseph did not "know" also supports Joseph as a prophet. The more Joseph's assumptions about Book of Mormon geography prove to be wrong, the greater a testimony that he did not write the book himself. "We assume," Roper said, "that since Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon, and that it was translated by the gift and power of God, that he would know everything about the book that an author would. I would submit that the two are not the same thing. I could translate the 'Wars of Caesar' and not know anything about ancient Gaul or the different tribes."
When Meldrum's theories first became popularized through firesides and a DVD he produced, the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) took notice and responded with gusto.
"The way he said things, they attack that more than they attack the evidence that he presented," Porter said.
Scott Gordon, president of FAIR, would not disagree. "We view this as a steadying-of-the-ark issue. We really don't care where he picks for his theory on where the Book of Mormon can take place," Gordon said. "What we care about that he is implying that the church is not following the teachings of Joseph Smith. Which means the church leadership, the prophet — everything is not following. And we think that is a very, very dangerous position."
"They are getting really worried because they are seeing this is becoming a movement. That's their words," Meldrum said. "They are just saying it's a movement because they are getting a lot of flak from people who are seeing the DVD and the information and thinking, 'You know what, this makes a lot of sense.' "
But supporters also see the heartland theory as an inspired movement that will transform the LDS Church: "(V)ery few people out there fully grasp the magnitude of this movement and the powerful influence that it is having and the sweeping nature of its message," wrote one prominent supporter. "It will sweep the church and most LDS will not even understand what happened until it's past. … Time is our friend."
A movement — about geography?
Historian Ronald O. Barney has seen similar attitudes in some people supporting Mesoamerica. One person described a particular Mesoamerican book as "life-transforming" and that the book "changed the way I think about everything."
Life-transforming?
"People are hanging their faith on evidence of Book of Mormon peoples," Barney said.
"I just think that this way of thinking about our religion is such a waste of time," Barney said, "It almost suggests we don't trust the Holy Ghost. Not only are we worried that he won't reveal to people the truthfulness of the book, but we want to augment it — even if we have to bend and distort — so that there can be no mistake about its truthfulness."
Meldrum said he doesn't hang his testimony on the heartland theory.
"I don't know that this geography is true. I've said that many times and I want to make sure that that's clear. If President Monson was to tomorrow say, 'You know what? I've had a revelation and the Book of Mormon occurred in Indonesia,' you know what? I'm with him." Meldrum said with a laugh.
John L. Sorenson stands by the Mesoamerican theory, but also the Prophet.
"(Geography) wasn't very important to him and he didn't know much about it," Sorenson said. "Joseph knew what he knew — and what he knew was far more important than geography."
Joseph's nephew, President Joseph F. Smith, would probably agree.
This book is loaded with information that probably none of the commentators on this thread are aware of. I remember that someone had mocked the frequent use of "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon. On page 132 of this book is this 1986 notice:
Mayan Glyphs Translated "It Came To Pass"
Two reports of Mayan glyphs translated to read "...it came to pass..." have come to our attention. The first report is from the 1985 Mayan Hieroglyphic Workshop at the University of Texas conducted by Linda Schele, a leading glyph expert. The workbook from the workshop lists several combinations of "it came to pass." The second report, in the March issue of Science 86 magazine ("The Lost Language of Coba" by Virginia Morell, p. 48), shows the drawing of a glyph on a Palenque tablet that David Stuart has translated to mean "it came to pass."
Besides this archaeological evidence, there has always existed a common sense explanation. "It came to pass" is not used when every detail in a narrative is being described. It is used to indicate a passage of time. The Book of Mormon summarizes a long and complex history, resulting in many narrative gaps that are indicated by "it came to pass".
Actually the interpretation is “to happen, or to come to pass”. Glyphs convey CONCEPTS not actual PHRASES. Does Dr Stuart come to the same conclusion - that this show that the bom is true? Hate to break this development to you John, but from his articles and blogs I've read the answer appears to be no. Particularly his webblog where if you search the word "mormon" you receive this answer -
NOT FOUND
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.
The archaeological community does not recognize the bom story to have any relevance to mayan or any central american culture. It is called selectively mining cultures for parallels to mormonism - while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence that those same cultures in no manner are those described in the bom.
Take time to read some of Dr. Stuart's papers - many are available on line. He notes a great deal of history being interpreted with a complete absence of linkage to anything resembling the bom - and with good reason - nothing does! Does the bom detail bloodletting rituals? Other details of Mayan worship are completely foreign to the bom and the Jewish worship practices that it claims occurred here.
A culture with writing will inevitably use it to document its HISTORY in some fashion. It is impossible to do so without some symbol meaning “and then this happened.” How many other glyphs are there John and do any of them relate anything more directly associated with the bom - say the names of the cities, bom characters, etc. This is simply the mormon equivalent of blindfolding a man, giving him thousands of darts to hit a dart board some where in the room, and if he does, the mormon apologists swoon over how he was able to accomplish that being blindfolded - ignoring the thousands of misses.
I generally find these comparison charts by mormon apologist laughable. IF there was such a strong correlation to the bom - why does archaeology still relate a completely different story.
Take the Olmec. IF the bom story is true, then evidence for the end of the Olmec culture should be well documented as due to a massive genocidal war that completely kills all but one person.
There is no archaeological evidence of a war. Evidence points to an environmental crisis that forced the population centers to move. Due probably in part to the Olmecs practice of swidden (or slash-and-burn) agriculture to clear the forests and shrubs, and to provide new fields once the old fields were exhausted.
Zarahemla Research Foundation
Also likes to try to superimpose a hebraic / semetic linguistic development chart upon the mayan cultural development. Clearly this view is not held by modern archaeologists. Probably the most recognized scholar on Central America - Michael Coe - views the Olmec as the mayan predecessors, and if this is the case, then the Olmec didn't genocidally kill each other off as described in the bom. Other linguists have traced the trend from the Olmec language into the later Mayan linguistic groups. What is missing - anything resembling Hebrew / egyptian / or anything resembling a semitic / middle eastern linguistic system.
The Zarahemla Research Foundation is convinced that Mesoamerica is the area in which Book of Mormon peoples lived
They may be 'convinced', they are shy any real scholarship in the field. There is not a single professional article for a peer reviewed journal evidenced, nor is there evidence that the members hold any credible associated scientific degrees in the fields of archaeology or linguistics.
And in closing, there are many other similar mormon 'research' organizations that are convinced that the bom lands lie in other areas.
The Zarahemla Research Foundation cited David Stuart precisely because he is not a Book of Mormon enthusiast. That makes his translation uninfluenced by any desire to support it, which means that his interpretation is unbiased, the very reason ZRF quoted him.
Hate to break this development to you John, but from his articles and blogs I've read the answer appears to be no. Particularly his webblog where if you search the word "mormon" you receive this answer - NOT FOUND Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.
As I just explained, he was not quoted because he supports the Book of Mormon, but precisely because he does not. Why do you write, "you are looking for something that isn't here"? Do you claim to be able to read my mind? If so, you are misrepresenting my intentions. I know that glyphs translated "it came to pass" are overly obvious, since something like that is needed in any language.
The archaeological community does not recognize the bom story to have any relevance to mayan or any central american culture.
Not yet. Their doubt is understandable and commendable. When they procede in their studies with either no bias or with a bias against the Book of Mormon, all the more impressive would be any of their findings that end up, despite any displeasure at it, supporting the Book of Mormon. A good example of this was the discovery of fortifications at Tikal and Becan, which are exactly like those described in the Book of Alma. Of course, any serious fortifications must tend towards what is described in the Book of Alma. So this does not prove that the Book of Mormon is true, nor is anyone claiming that it does.
It is called selectively mining cultures for parallels to mormonism - while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence that those same cultures in no manner are those described in the bom.
Mesoamerican archaeology has not advanced far enough for anyone to claim that a preponderance of evidence exists for being able to safely declare: "those same cultures in no manner are those described in the bom".
Take time to read some of Dr. Stuart's papers - many are available on line. He notes a great deal of history being interpreted with a complete absence of linkage to anything resembling the bom - and with good reason - nothing does!
I already mentioned fortifications discovered at Tikal and Becan, which do resemble what is described in the Book of Alma. So your "nothing does!" sounds like bluster to me.
Does the bom detail bloodletting rituals? Other details of Mayan worship are completely foreign to the bom and the Jewish worship practices that it claims occurred here.
Here you are apparently ignorantly comparing post-Nephite destruction conditions to pre-destruction conditions. The Book of Mormon does not detail post-Nephite bloodletting rituals, although it does describe what Lamanites did to Nephites during the final war between them:
"The Nephites were driven and slaughtered with an exceeding great slaughter; their women and their children were again sacrificed unto idols."
I do not believe that you are thoroughly familiar with everything that goes on in Mesoamerican archaeology. I know that at least one member of ZRF has a degree in archaeology and that another is very knowledgeable in the field of liguistics. ZRF has accomplished something that no other set of scholars have accomplished, completing an edition of the Book of Mormon that is founded on both of the manuscripts, the original dictated manuscript (only partially preserved) and the original printer's manuscript (completely preserved and on display to the general public in the Community of Christ Temple in Independence, Missouri, and on microfilm in the Temple's library). So impressive is ZRF's Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon that it has inspired the Mormon church to move their edition closer to the original manuscripts.
And in closing, there are many other similar mormon 'research' organizations that are convinced that the bom lands lie in other areas.
Some use the massive upheavals during the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as an excuse for saying that Book of Mormon lands were altered from what is described in the Book of Mormon. But they overlook the fact that the chief description of Book of Mormon lands was written by Mormon centuries after the upheaval. As a military general Mormon was completely familiar with geography. ZRF has been painstakingly studying Book of Mormon geographical references. Their Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon has a concordance of all geographical references to make study of the subject easier.
No area of the American continents fits the requirements of Book of Mormon peoples having lived in it better than Mesoamerica. Not only does Book of Mormon chronology fit into Mesoamerican chronology, but the Book of Mormon's statements on geography cannot fit any other place in America. One has to account for traveling distances between places, which lands border which seas, differences in elevation (from the Land of Nephi one must go north and "down" to the Land of Zarahemla), etc.
Absent the whole context of the item John, which misrepresents his greater interpretation of the OTHER materials that are present. Does he support zrf's interpretations - no, therefore zrf has forced its interpretation on it.
Do you claim to be able to read my mind? If so, you are misrepresenting my intentions. I know that glyphs translated "it came to pass" are overly obvious, since something like that is needed in any language.
Or you mine? Try reading things in context. But since you post that this 'discovery' supports the bom, it is not mind reading but statement of contrast between fact and fiction.
Not yet.
Ah yes, the great mormon hope eh John? The facts are that the reason archaeologists do not adopt the bom as a source for interpreting archaeological data is that the archaeological data does not support the bom. Not a thimble full of authentic archaeological artifacts have ever been found for the bom. Dr Stuart notes that (at the time he wrote one of his online papers - 1995ish) nearly 70% of the mayan glyphs have been interpreted - and in all that not a single bom related reference can be identified - apart from this twisted 'interpretation' that is not supported by the rest of the evidence/
A good example of this was the discovery of fortifications at Tikal and Becan, which are exactly like those described in the Book of Alma.
Fortifications of the like there are found all over the world, just as pyramidal structures have been. Infact zrf is using old data. More recent studies at Tikal suggest that the earthworks are not fortifications. Further, the earthworks do not continue around the southern area. The earthworks found were always built toward the center of Tikal, with the ditches on the outside, even when that meant that the earthwork itself might end up downhill of the surrounding terrain. (September 9, 2006 Dr. David Webster, Pennsylvania State University: "The Great Tikal Earthwork: Fortification or Folly?") Fact of the matter John, is that with all the recent studies - absolutely nothing related to the bom has been found in mayan writings at these locations, PERIOD. I'm reading a 2007 phd dissertation on these things - striking out John.
Mesoamerican archaeology has not advanced far enough for anyone to claim that a preponderance of evidence exists for being able to safely declare: "those same cultures in no manner are those described in the bom".
As pointed out, old information has 70% of glyphs translated. And if you are relying on the uneducated at zrf to feed you the information, you are eating air, and not real food. Again, not a thimblefull of solid evidence that can be linked to the bom, not a one. The materials and state of the work are huge John, we are not talking 1800's but 2010. That claim is made towards the Smithsonian and Nat'l Geo societies - both of whom have soundly rejected the bom as being historically linked to central america (or any where in the new world for that matter).
I already mentioned fortifications discovered at Tikal and Becan, which do resemble what is described in the Book of Alma. So your "nothing does!" sounds like bluster to me.
And I have pointed out that zrf's interpretations are not founded. Now I know that there are many mormon archaeologists - where are their journal articles in peer reviewed works supporting this? The silence is loud on the issue John, if the evidence for the bom is so overwhelming. No, this is just another example of mining cultural 'simularities' absent of the context of the culture.
Here you are apparently ignorantly comparing post-Nephite destruction conditions to pre-destruction conditions. The Book of Mormon does not detail post-Nephite bloodletting rituals, although it does describe what Lamanites did to Nephites during the final war between them:
LOL, who's being ignorant? Where is the evidence of this final genocidal war John (there are none in mayan archaeology), mayan religious rituals do not match your citation in the least - as the blood letting was characteristic of "Pre-Nephite" destruction. Kinda hard to have your cake and eat it too when there is no cake to begin with John.
Perhaps, but because of my interactions with mormons of all flavors I've worked to maintain a degree of familiarity.
I know that at least one member of ZRF has a degree in archaeology and that another is very knowledgeable in the field of liguistics.
Fine, provide me a citation from a peer reviewed journal on mesoamerican archaeology or linguistics that makes the case that the bom is an accurate source for interpreting the events in central america.
ZRF has accomplished something that no other set of scholars have accomplished, completing an edition of the Book of Mormon that is founded on both of the manuscripts, the original dictated manuscript (only partially preserved) and the original printer's manuscript . . .
To which I say fine, adjusting a work of fiction. Absent the golden plates for TRUE source referencing it really doesn't impress me.
As a military general Mormon was completely familiar with geography. ZRF has been painstakingly studying Book of Mormon geographical references. Their Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon has a concordance of all geographical references to make study of the subject easier.
Well then there should be a large museum containing all of the bom artifacts from these locations eh? You can have all the geographical references you want - absence the evidence only makes it fictitious.
No area of the American continents fits the requirements of Book of Mormon peoples having lived in it better than Mesoamerica.
Not according to many other mormon researchers, but then if one likes to go north to reach the 'sea west' and consider 'narrow' land 160 plus miles across, LOL.
Wish I could have asked him for the next Powerball numbers.
One real irony is that the LDS "scholars" working on the Mesoamerican angle are speaking of how the cultures record things yet that very linguistic heritage is perhaps the best proof against the entire concept of ANY mesoamerican culture being the peoples in the BoM.
A culture significant and accomplished enough to record information in any type of writing would note major events. The landing of people different from them would be note worthy, and don't get me even started about Jesus if he showed up. That would not only be note worthy but even if what he created fell apart (LDS incompetent Christ syndrome) the concept and name would become wrapped up in the oral/written tradition.
1000 years later when the Spanish arrive and started "converting the savages" the response would have been "Jesus, yeah we've heard of him."
Unless he was working under an alias...
(LDS incompetent Christ syndrome strikes again???)
He would of lied to you about it though he had guessed the wrong numbers anyways, and while you were trying to figure out what to do next take the rest of your stuff as well...
And your wife if you have one...
Is this intended to impress me or anyone else reading it? You are acting as if "peer reviewed journals" are an unfailing standard of truth that are above criticism.
Peer review boards are a useful tool in the hands of institutions of learning for suppressing unwanted information and expressions. A list of important scientific discoveries that have contributed to the advancement of science without the blessing of peer review boards would almost be a list of all important discoveries. The only justification for peer reviews is preventing sloppy science from having voice and influence. Because those who sit on review boards have personal outlooks on life and personal agendas, they have little incentive for allowing anything that does not already fit those outlooks and those agendas.
Since most peer review boards are associated with institutions of higher learning that are dominated by people indoctrinated in liberal philosophy, many peer review boards are tools of the liberal left.
Therefore, when you set up peer review boards as the standard, and then point out that the Book of Mormon is not taken seriously by these boards, you are setting up a formula that, if accepted, would forever condemn the Book of Mormon, not on the merits of evidence, but with the tyranny of suppression.
The Book of Mormon is a conservative manifesto inspired to be written by the King of all conservative thinking: God. Every major belief of political conservatism is supported by the Book of Mormon:
1. Liberty and rights are given by God, not human governments. Freedom of worship. "There was no law against a man's belief" in the constitutional republic the Nephites established by King Mosiah, when his sons through religious conversion to Christ, refused the throne.
2. Family values, the sanctity of life, the innocence of children. No book of scriptural book has a stronger condemnation of polygamy than the Book of Mormon. "I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women, and whoredoms are abominations before Me."
3. The best human government is the one that rules the least. "They relinquished their desires for a king and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout the land, yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for their own sins."
4. A free nation should defend itself from oppressing nations through military superiority. This is shown by freedom-loving Nephites developing armor and fortifications that thwarted Lamanite attacks.
So in setting up peer review boards as an ultimate proof that the Book of Mormon is false, you are using the liberal establishment against a noble, inspired conservative manifesto that is being established as true by Mesoamerican archaeology, contrary to the wishes of peer review boards, who can only suppress the truth until it overwhelms them.
Zilla, do you remember your Uncle Remus...
I must protest against your "uneducated at zrf" comment. What do you know about the Zarahemla Research Foundation? Its chief leader has been Raymond C. Treat. As reported in Recent Book of Mormon Developments, volume 1 (1984), here is how Treat would begin his illustrated lectures on the Book of Mormon (which I have attended):
"I speak to you today both as a student of the Book of Mormon and as a professional archaeologist. I would like to share with you some of the insights which have come to me as a result of combining these two fields."
Are you denying that Treat has been a professional archaeologist? Or do you think that a professional archaeologist who believes that the Book of Mormon is true should be labeled "uneducated" because of that belief?
No John, it is to place the bom to the same standard placed upon the use of the bible in middle eastern archaeology. The bible is accepted as providing historical information to the region and it is supported by warehouses full of artifacts with names of biblical persons, cities, decisions, and historical events - all from the bible.
Peer review boards are a useful tool in the hands of institutions of learning for suppressing unwanted information and expressions.
Ah now John, lets help the environment and use a little less tinfoil Ok.
Therefore, when you set up peer review boards as the standard, and then point out that the Book of Mormon is not taken seriously by these boards, you are setting up a formula that, if accepted, would forever condemn the Book of Mormon, not on the merits of evidence, but with the tyranny of suppression.
As noted from the first in this reply - the bible is not exempted from peer reviewed articles and journals, but is often cited as in one fashion or another. The bible rises above agendas ON THE BASIS OF THE MERITS OF THE EVIDENCE. It is not surprising that the bom is not cited as source - because as you read the articles and reports on mayan and central american cultures it becomes very clear very quickly that those cultures bear absolutely no similarities to those cultures described in the bom. It all comes down to credability - IF the 'came to pass' glyph is such a foundational proof of the bom - why no papers in mesoamerican journals? Probably because there is NO EVIDENCE TO MERIT.
As mentioned earlier - a vast amount of the mayan glyphs have been interpreted - guess what - not a single bom place name, individual or event has ever been found being mentioned or even indirectly inferred. YOUR bom claims certain geographic regions - yet there is a glaring ABSENCE of material reflecting a Nephite or Lamanite culture as described in the bom.
Since most peer review boards are associated with institutions of higher learning that are dominated by people indoctrinated in liberal philosophy, many peer review boards are tools of the liberal left.
LOL, sorry John, poisoning the well is not valid here as I know that there are many conservative scientists out there as well, especially in the field of biblical archaeology, that are able to stand on the merits of the evidence for the bible from archaeology.
No book of scriptural book has a stronger condemnation of polygamy than the Book of Mormon. "I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women, and whoredoms are abominations before Me."
IIRC you are RLDS/CoC and do not believe smith was polygamous - tell that to the 30 some ought women he married, and for that cause ordered the destruction of the Expositor in Nauvoo.
This is shown by freedom-loving Nephites developing armor. . .
And this nephite armor has been discovered where??
So in setting up peer review boards as an ultimate proof that the Book of Mormon is false, you are using the liberal establishment against a noble, inspired conservative manifesto that is being established as true by Mesoamerican archaeology, contrary to the wishes of peer review boards, who can only suppress the truth until it overwhelms them.
I see no reason to hold the bom to a LESSER standard than the bible has been placed at for the past couple hundred years of archaeology. Knowledge of mesoamerican cultures has grown by orders of magnitude within the past few years - and still no evidence of any kind of mormon 'truth' coming about to overwhelm them.
As pre-imminent mesoamerican scholar and archaeologist Michael Coe concluded in an article "Mormons and Archaeology" published in "Dialogue" -
In conclusion, an outside observer like myself would make these suggestions. Forget the so-far fruitless quest for the Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites, and the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful: there is no more chance of finding them than of discovering the ruins of the bottomless pit described in the book of Revelations. It has been Hugh Nibley himself, the Mormon philosopher and historian, who has pointed out the futility of such endeavors.13 Continue the praiseworthy excavations in Mexico, remembering that little or nothing pertaining to the Book of Mormon will ever result from the remains of the Saints themselves.
How many archaeological digs in central america has this 'foundation' conducted and reported in secular journals? AFA Mr. Treat, his only work of significance that was published is "Early and middle preclassic sub-mound refuse deposits at Vistahermosa, Chiapas" published in New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University - hardly an independent publication - with nothing to claim proving the bom. It does seem Mr. Treat is still scratching around Becan trying to prove General Moroni was there - but all those darn glyphs and writings keep telling a different story. And the dates just don't line up. According to the bom, Alma occurred between 90 and 77 B.C. According to "Archaeology of ancient Mexico and Central America: an encyclopedia " (2001) the fortifications at Becan were constructed 150 AD - my, that is over 200 years too late for the bom story. Becan has been an intensely studied city, so why hasn't the good Mr. Treat published his findings in a more credible journal IF this is proof of the bom?
As reported in Recent Book of Mormon Developments, volume 1 (1984), here is how Treat would begin his illustrated lectures on the Book of Mormon (which I have attended):
Interesting to note the date - 1984, and yet here we are 26 years later and there is still no solid evidence of cultures described in the bom being present anywhere in mesoamerica. Mormon scholars such as Mr. Treat will continue to write their "informed opinions" about nothing definitive, and cling to their speculations with the most admirable, but false hope that one day something definitive will show up and surprise even them.
Mormon apologist Michael Ash recently stated :"1. There is no official Book of Mormon geography." (Mormon Times, Feb 2010). His reply is no different from mormon archaeologist Dee F. Green ""The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed."
It appears that the additional time has still left mormons empty handed.
Are you denying that Treat has been a professional archaeologist? Or do you think that a professional archaeologist who believes that the Book of Mormon is true should be labeled "uneducated" because of that belief?
Treat is one of many mormon archaeologists who've attempted to prove the bom only to be stifled at all points because there is no supporting evidence for their claims. Recent mormon developments is a 1984 document - and all the more materials today continue to show that the bom cannot be relied upon to provide a historic background to the mesoamerican culture. If the good Mr. Treat believes he has the goods - put them forth and silence the rest of mesoamerican archaeology - as such a find would be like the golden grail for archaeologists just like the rosetta stone was for egyptology. But this is 2010, knowledge of the mayan culture has been intensely studied, the majority of its tens of thousands of inscriptions translated and nothing, NOTHING related to the peoples or culture listed in the bom has yet to be found. I believe that Mr. Treat is educated enough to know that his interpretations of the materials just will not stand up under the review of his archaeological peers - thus stays in safe waters promoting bom tours and white-washed mesoamerican history to the believing masses.
When archaeology gradually proved that Bible statements relating to the real world are historically correct, longstanding criticisms of the Bible, that it was mere storytelling, suffered embarassment, and the Bible was gradually accepted as a prime source of historical information.
The Book of Mormon is now in exactly the same position as the Bible once was. Those who think that it is mere storytelling are going to suffer embarassment as archaeological discoveries continue, and it will gradually be accepted as a prime source of historical information.
Until then, academia will mock it, just as it did the Bible before archaeology embarrassed academia's view that the Bible was mere storytelling.
Ah now John, lets help the environment and use a little less tinfoil Ok.
Statements like this show something more about you than about me.
As mentioned earlier - a vast amount of the mayan glyphs have been interpreted - guess what - not a single bom place name, individual or event has ever been found being mentioned or even indirectly inferred. YOUR bom claims certain geographic regions - yet there is a glaring ABSENCE of material reflecting a Nephite or Lamanite culture as described in the bom.
Before archaeology gradually proved that the Bible is historically accurate, there was also a glaring absence of material reflecting national cultures as described in the Bible.
Fine, provide me a citation from a peer reviewed journal on mesoamerican archaeology or linguistics that makes the case that the bom is an accurate source for interpreting the events in central america.[’zilla]
You are acting as if “peer reviewed journals” are an unfailing standard of truth that are above criticism. [JM]
- - - - - - -
They are for the most part. At lest, they are as far as academic and archeological proof. If you are no published in a peer review journal you have ZERO ZERO credibility, especially in archeology. I am a past president of one of the largest (was largest at the time not sure if it still is) AIA chapters in the country. I know SEVERAL meso-american archeologists and have a background in archeology.
I called a couple of my M-A friends and asked them about this group and they laughed. Mentioning Book of Mormon Archeology to a M-Aer is like mentioning EA Wallis Budge or Erich Von Daniken to an Egyptologist.
Furthermore you are COMPLETELY mistaken about ‘peer review’. These are not ‘boards’ they are individual scholars who have their own minds, their own experience and their own opinions. Peer review is a check against bad science (or history or whatever) like the pseudo archeology of the Book of Mormon.
Also, John YOU were the one that brought up the Zarahemla group as proof and support of the BoM, yet now you are backpeddaling stating that there is no proof because the BoM is ‘conservative’ and the peers are liberal.
BTW, I know more conservative (and Jewish or Christian) archeologists than I do in any other field. To blame the ‘lack of evidence’ on liberals is pathetic to say the least.
Not really John. For starters, there was a REAL geographical location - the middle east / Israel - to start with. Archaeology was supporting the Bible long before the bom was even dreamed of by smith. Materials that even pre-date Nephi/lehi and the jaredites.
The bible has stood on its merits. It is only wishful thinking by mormons of every flavor that suddenly something will change in the vastly expanded understanding of mesoamerica that will turn everything on its head. Past mormon claims of solid archaeological evidences have turned out to be academically proven misrepresentations of the material and inscriptions - for example the 'tree of life' escapade. Remember, this is 2010 and NOTHING referring to bom peoples, places or events have been uncovered in mesoamerica.
Statements like this show something more about you than about me.
I am an observer John, I don't see conspiracies hiding under every mesoamerican scholar.
Before archaeology gradually proved that the Bible is historically accurate, there was also a glaring absence of material reflecting national cultures as described in the Bible.
Ah, such is the flawed view of biblical archaeology. Babylon, egypt, assyrian, persian and multiple other cultures were identified BEFORE the 1800s and immediately found support in the bible. In fact, early on archaeologists were more dependent upon the bible than today. There was no 'gradual' acceptance John.
Fast forward to today John, discoveries confirming in even greater detail the story and history of the bible. 1992 Ashkelon’s Arched Gate, Jerusalem' Stepped Stone Structure, the Tel Dan (“David”) Stela (1993), St. Peter’s House in Capernaum. I can go on and on, such as the Dec 2009 announcement of a house in Nazareth dating to the period of Christ. Do a google on biblical archaeology some time and you'll see the wealth of materials - then compare it to the poverty of materials in support of the bom even with the advancements of 2010. Notice that I keep noting the complete absence of bom characters and cities in mayan writings. Fundamentally the bible and archaeological finds confirm wide spread civlizations - clay tablets dated from 2300 BC at Ebla identifying the area by name "Caanan", the Hittites (inscriptions FOUND in 1876), Assyrian king named Sargon, Belshazzar, king of Babylon, etc. As I said, since the 1800s the amount of undisputed biblical materials found fills warehouses and museums around the world. Note also that these finds are OLD relative to the bom era and Biblical archaeology.
How much undisputed bom materials are there John, honestly now - it is zero isn't it and here we are in 2010 with far greater detail of mesoamerican history, culture, and life than ever before - bom name, cities, historical references - nada, zero, zilch.
Really John, given the narrative in the bom, the residue and abundance of archaeological relics should be staggering and clearly unmistakable by any standard of archaeological measure. Given the WHOLE data set, there is no evidence of an metallurgically advanced hebraic/middle eastern culture that spread from like sand from sea to sea with horses, chariots, steel/iron swords, metal armor, western crops, etc.
This, combined with many other mormon groups contending that other areas are described by the bom - well, since 1830 we've been waiting for unrefutable bom evidence - and I guess at this rate we will still be waiting.
“Let me know state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, ... nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon... is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.”
- Michael Coe, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp. 42, 46
“I’m afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography.... you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology.”
- Thomas S. Ferguson, Mormon archaeologist, and author of Quest for the Gold Plates, “Letter to Mr. and Mrs. H.W. Lawrence,” dated Feb. 20, 1976
“While some people chose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through archaeological evidences, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient knowledge. I do not support the books written on this subject including The Messiah in Ancient America, or any other. I believe that the authors are making cases out of too little evidences and do not adequately address the problems that archaeology and the Book of Mormon present. I would feel terribly embarrassed if anyone sent a copy of any book written on the subject to the National Museum of Natural History – Smithsonian Institution, or other authority, making claims that cannot as yet be substantiated.... there are very severe problems in this field in trying to make correlations with the scriptures. Speculation, such as practiced so far by Mormon authors has not given church members credibility.”
- Ray T. Matheny, Mormon scholar and BYU professor of anthropology, letter dated Dec. 17, 1987
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.