50 replies to this topic

[Anakin7]

What is the past/current opinion by non LDS Professsors/Scholars/Experts of Mesoamerica in relation to The Book Of Mormon and it's contents ?. Do we have any recognized Professors/Scholars/Experts in this field ?. Have any non LDS Professors/Scholars/recognized experts in there field given any positive statements concerning The Book Of Mormon ?.Thanks in advance.

In His Debt/Grace
Anakin7
LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[robuchan]

You're not asking the right question.

We don't know where to look.

We don't know what to look for.

The issue is not why haven't we found any evidence.  The question is why would we expect to find any evidence.

[altersteve]

robuchan, on 12 March 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

The issue is not why haven't we found any evidence.

The reason why this isn't the issue is because we have found evidence. Critics simply don't want to accept it as such.

[Kevin Christensen]

Retired Mesoamericanist Michael Coe has dismissed the Book of Mormon several times.  A 1973 Dialogue article, an interview for the PBS Series on The Mormons, and most recently in John Dehlin's five hour interview at Mormon Stories.   Coe's approach remains stuck in the 1950s, and the intellectual world of Fawn Brodie and the disillusion of Tom Ferguson.

Speaking of the collective group of Mesoamericansts on the Book of Mormon, Mark Wright offered this comment a few years ago:

Quote

Mark Wright Posted 01 March 2008 - 09:12 PM



In answer to the question, "If there are history PhDs or professional archaeologists who converted to Mormonism after analyzing the BoM and finding it compellingly authentic, please, tell us who they are."



I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan). They both joined the church several years ago after meeting some missionaries proselyting outside the gates of the Teo. Kim and Alejandro just got sealed last March. Both of them joined the church many, many years after earning their degrees in archaeology and both have decades of research under their belts at Teotihuacan (a site which was flourishing in Book of Mormon times, incidentally). I will serve as a primary source on this information, since I know Kim and her husband, and had lunch with them down in Teo just a few weeks ago.

As for the opinion of most Mesoamerican scholars, the vast majority of them have no clue what the Book of Mormon says and most will never take the time to read it. Most of what they think they know about it comes from psuedoscholars who publish their misinformed junk science that fills the shelves of Deseret Book. As a Mesoamericanist, the only books I can really recommend on the subject that contain current scholarship are Brant's new volumes, but I don't know any scholars would take the time to read a six-volume set. Most won't take the time to respond to an email (I'm not kidding).

As for how archaeologists who happen to be Mormon are concerned, they are well respected in the field. I'm at the Maya Meetings at Texas right now (they end tomorrow). Allen Christensen from BYU spoke to a packed house last night - everybody here absolutely adores him. He was even asked to cover MCing duty today since David Stuart's voice was going out (David Stuart is the world's leading Maya epigrapher). John Clark is also highly respected in the field, as is Richard Hansen (though he got in some hot water for consulting on Apocalypto). I know of a couple of others who are LDS (who don't make it public out of fear of being labeled crack-pots, which prejudice is based on the aforementioned junk science). My committee members all know I'm LDS, and they show me just as much respect as any other doctoral candidate.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[Gervin]

robuchan, on 12 March 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

The issue is not why haven't we found any evidence.

altersteve, on 12 March 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

The reason why this isn't the issue is because we have found evidence.

Mr. Robuchan, meet Mr. Altersteve.  Mr. Altersteve, Mr. Robuchan.

[Gervin]

Kevin Christensen, on 12 March 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

I can name two: Alejandro Sarabia, the current site director of Teotihuacan (the largest archaeological zone in all of Mesoamerica) and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith (PhD, UC Riverside Dept of Anthropology, dissertation on ceramics of Teotihuacan).

I've heard these names for many years, now.  I know they're real people and all.  It's a bit strange, to me, that they don't seem to write or speak of the Book of Mormon and their work (or how there is no relationship between the two).  I wonder why they've not been featured in any LDS publications?  They've been members since 2004, I think.

Edited by Gervin, 12 March 2012 - 01:41 PM.

[poulsenll]

The Serabias were featured on the Neal A Maxwell production of "Journey of Faith - The New World" and Kim served as director of the NWAF Research and Study Center in Chiapas, Mexico. There research does not involve cultures thought to be related to the BofM cultures and it is unlikely that they would care to write any such articles beyond their comments on the New World DVD.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

In addition Brant Gardner, who holds an advanced  degree in anthropology and worked on the NWAF expeditions, has maintained an interest and written extensively on the subject although he chose to make his living in another field.

I wish people would stop demanding opinions on a Mormon topic by non Mormons. This is like asking an archetect to comment on medical treatments for cancer. Non mormon mesoamericanists are not interested in the BofM as a textbook on Msoamerican culture and even though it may have taken place in Mesoamerica, The BofM is not and does not claim in any way to be such a textbook.

Larry P

[Tepui]

poulsenll, on 12 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

I wish people would stop demanding opinions on a Mormon topic by non Mormons. This is like asking an archetect to comment on medical treatments for cancer. Non mormon mesoamericanists are not interested in the BofM as a textbook on Msoamerican culture and even though it may have taken place in Mesoamerica, The BofM is not and does not claim in any way to be such a textbook.

Larry P

Martin Harris did.

[Tepui]

poulsenll, on 12 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

I wish people would stop demanding opinions on a Mormon topic by non Mormons. This is like asking an archetect to comment on medical treatments for cancer. Non mormon mesoamericanists are not interested in the BofM as a textbook on Msoamerican culture and even though it may have taken place in Mesoamerica, The BofM is not and does not claim in any way to be such a textbook.

Larry P

Why not ask "non mormon mesoamericanists" of their opinion? According to mormon mesoamericanists, mormon mesoamericanists learned of Book of Mormon geography from non mormon mesoamericanists.

Quote

Enthusiastic comments published at Nauvoo showed that the Church's leaders, including Joseph Smith, were immensely stimulated by the new information. Within a few weeks of the first notice, they announced they had just discovered, by reading Stephens's book, that the Nephites' prime homeland must have been in Central...America.

Yep. Joseph Smith learned from non mormon mesoamericanists where true Book of Mormon geography was.
This is like President Monson discovering the location of the Lost Tribes of Israel from reading the National Geographic, and then ignoring the National Geographic's opinions on the matter.

So, politely, you're wrong Poulsenll. IF Mormon Mesoamericanists are going to declare the Prophet of God (Joseph Smith) discovered the location of Book of Mormon geography from non-mormon mesoamericanists, then non-mormon mesoamericanist's opinions on the subject do matter. Because it was their work as the source of Joseph Smith's discovery!

[Freedom]

I recommend you read the books written by non-mormon experts about the early people of mesoamerica and you will be astonished how much they write about the Book of Mormon without realizing it. There are many old world archaeologist who do not believe in the bible so is a double standard to demand non-mormon experts to sustain a book that does not establish a location but have no urgency to have non-christian experts join the fold due to a book that is very clear on location. We have no written record to compare the Book of Mormon to so there is no starting point for a discussion. Much of what we know of the Olmecs, for example, is conjecture based on a few pots found here, a single grave of 5 children over there and so forth. What we know of them is conclusions based on what is found from civilizations of similar nature in other parts of the world.

We do not even know for certain if the Book of Mormon took place in central america so there is little point in the exercise.

[Hashbaz]

I know of a dozen or so well-respected faithful Latter-day Saints with PhD's in Mesoamerican studies who are very active in the field, but a good portion of them are publicly silent about their belief in the Book of Mormon. I am currently in Antigua, Guatemala, for the annual Maya Meetings hosted by UT Austin. I'm participating in the Advanced Glyphs and Grammar workshop, and of the 12 people in the room, three of us are LDS (including the teacher, for what it's worth). Although he's not here this year, one of our most prominent scholars is Allen Christensen, the world's leading authority on the Popol Vuh and the modern Quiche' Maya. He is regularly invited to speak at conferences and lead workshops at the most exclusive Maya meetings across the world. Two of the foremost authorities on the Preclassic period are John Clark and Richard Hansen. The rest I will not name, because they prefer to keep their faith quiet and it's not my place to out them. Why don't they openly speak or publish about the Book of Mormon? Because there is such a bias in the field that to do so would immediately call their credibility into question and could severely limit their options in academia. But in private conversations with most of them, they have expressed gratitude that I am willing to speak publicly about Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon and have had nothing but praise about the insights I have shared publicly, and they are often eager to share insights of their own that they wouldn't dare put into print. These are well-trained, well-respected Mesoamericanists with PhD's from the best universities in the world; they know what they are talking about. But they also know that speaking publicly about the Book of Mormon is essentially academic suicide. I'm fortunate enough to have an academic position where I am very free to express my views about the Book of Mormon without having to worry that my job could be at stake.

As for non-LDS Mesoamericanists, most of them know virtually nothing about the actual contents the Book of Mormon. It's not an issue that comes up at academic conferences or in the scholarly literature. The vast majority of them simply don't care about it (though they are leery of those that do). I personally know scores of Mesoamerican scholars, and to the best of my knowledge only two of them have ever read through the Book of Mormon, and it was well over 20 years ago for both of them. They are vaguely familiar with the work of FARMS from the 1980s, but not much beyond that.Their expertise in the Book of Mormon is roughly equivalent to my expertise in Shakespeare; I read Macbeth once in high school and watched the movie Much Ado About Nothing starring Keanu Reeves in 1993.  Fortunately, I've had the opportunity to share some of my insights with a number of my fellow Mesoamerican scholars one-on-one and virtually all of them have been very respectful and seemed to take no issue with anything I said. I usually get feedback such as "I can see that", "That makes sense", "I don't have a problem with that", and once I even got a very genuine "Wow! That's really interesting!". That last comment actually impacted me quite a bit. It helped me come to the realization that I'm not out to prove the Book of Mormon true; I'm out to prove it interesting. And I'm finding that to be a much more fruitful approach.

[Gervin]

Hashbaz, on 14 March 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

The rest I will not name, because they prefer to keep their faith quiet and it's not my place to out them. Why don't they openly speak or publish about the Book of Mormon? Because there is such a bias in the field that to do so would immediately call their credibility into question and could severely limit their options in academia.

Is this simply their perception or is it based in any fact; are there examples of academic suicide brought on by someone admitting they were a member of the LDS Church?  How do you happen to be so bullet-proof?

If they chose to publish, and their research was credible and defensible, why would this be suicide?

Edited by Gervin, 14 March 2012 - 04:50 AM.

[calmoriah]

Gervin, on 14 March 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

How do you happen to be so bullet-proof?

His position is at BYU,  I believe.  But mainly it is because he is so stunningly brilliant no one can deny that fact.

Edited by calmoriah, 14 March 2012 - 05:03 AM.

[cdowis]

Gervin, on 12 March 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

I've heard these names for many years, now.  I know they're real people and all.  It's a bit strange, to me, that they don't seem to write or speak of the Book of Mormon and their work (or how there is no relationship between the two).  I wonder why they've not been featured in any LDS publications?  They've been members since 2004, I think.

The major problem with BOM evidence in mesoamerica is.... identification of artifacts.  You discover a jade necklace -- how can you identify whether it is Nephite, Lamanite, or something else.   For the most part, the ancient names of cities or geographic features are unknown, with one interesting exception, Lamanai which has a BOM connection.

So, anyway you are being very silly.  How can LDS and nonLDS archeologists give any opinions.  Exactly what do you expect them to publish?

If you are able to give us some ideas on identification, you would do us a great favor.  Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.

Edited by cdowis, 14 March 2012 - 07:26 AM.

[Brant Gardner]

Gervin, on 14 March 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

If they chose to publish, and their research was credible and defensible, why would this be suicide?

Have you read Breaking the Maya Code and the discussion of Thompson's influential dismissal of Knorozov? That was over politics more than religion, but it is rather striking evidence that credible and defensible doesn't always ensure acceptance. It took a very, very long time for people to realize that Knorozov was actually on to something.

[Gervin]

cdowis, on 14 March 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

The major problem with BOM evidence in mesoamerica is.... identification of artifacts.  You discover a jade necklace -- how can you identify whether it is Nephite, Lamanite, or something else.

A jade necklace would in all likelihood be identified with a pre-Columbian culture such as the Olmec, Mayan, or one of the Valley of Mexico groups.  If someone was interested in idetifying it with something called "Nephite" or "Lamanite" then I imagine they would have to first show that such a culture actually existed, and existed in Mesoamerica.

cdowis, on 14 March 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

So, anyway you are being very silly.  How can LDS and nonLDS archeologists give any opinions.  Exactly what do you expect them to publish?

There seem to be a variety of opinions about whether the BOM setting is Mesoamerica (even this thread bears it out).  Sarabia and Goldsmith are the two names consistently trotted out as Mesoamerican archaeologists who believe the Book of Mormon is true - I was simply wondering if they had opined on this topic given their professions and belief.  Why is this silly?

[Gervin]

Brant Gardner, on 14 March 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Have you read Breaking the Maya Code and the discussion of Thompson's influential dismissal of Knorozov? That was over politics more than religion, but it is rather striking evidence that credible and defensible doesn't always ensure acceptance. It took a very, very long time for people to realize that Knorozov was actually on to something.

The history of scientific research and publication is strewn with people and ideas that aren't acccepted.  If "acceptance" is a persons criteria for publication, then that is academic suicide. Hashbaz said, "But they also know that speaking publicly about the Book of Mormon is essentially academic suicide."  Is this hyperbole or is it based on the fact that a member of the LDS Church committed academic suicide by publishing their research on the Book of Mormon?

Edited by Gervin, 14 March 2012 - 08:29 AM.

[cdowis]

Gervin, on 14 March 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

A jade necklace would in all likelihood be identified with a pre-Columbian culture such as the Olmec, Mayan, or one of the Valley of Mexico groups.

We agree that we do not know.  You just used a longer sentence to say the same thing.



  If someone was interested in idetifying it with something called "Nephite" or "Lamanite" then I imagine they would have to first show that such a culture actually existed, and existed in Mesoamerica.

How exactly do you propose to demonstrate that such a culture with the name Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite existed?  We know of many cultures in this area, and perhaps one of them is a BOM culture.  Again, it is a matter of identification.

In any case, we are aware of them from the only extant record from that time and place.  Again it is merely a matter of identifying their artifacts.

There is one hint at their cultural remains.  As I documented elsewhere in circa 600 BCE a village changed its burial rites that had been practiced for 1500 year to a custom similar to the Jewish custom.

There seem to be a variety of opinions about whether the BOM setting is Mesoamerica (even this thread bears it out).  Sarabia and Goldsmith are the two names consistently trotted out as Mesoamerican archaeologists who believe the Book of Mormon is true - I was simply wondering if they had opined on this topic given their professions and belief.  Why is this silly?

OK, they have a testimony of the BOM, but, to my knowledge, they have not resolved the issue of identification.  They would likely say that their knowledge of the history of the area is not inconsistent with the BOM, but not sufficient to prove it.

"Why is this silly?"

Again, you are making a phoney demand.  I showed the insurmountable barrier to this problem, requested a suggestion from you on how to resolve it, and you continue to blow hot air with no substance.

Edited by cdowis, 14 March 2012 - 08:59 AM.

[Brant Gardner]

Gervin, on 14 March 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

The history of scientific research and publication is strewn with people and ideas that aren't acccepted.  If "acceptance" is a persons criteria for publication, then that is academic suicide.

Haven't read about Knorozov, right?

Quote

Hashbaz said, "But they also know that speaking publicly about the Book of Mormon is essentially academic suicide."  Is this hyperbole or is it based on the fact that a member of the LDS Church committed academic suicide by publishing their research on the Book of Mormon?

Hashbaz is in a position to know the actual climate. You may trust his assessment. He and I have had discussions where he has been able to name names and discuss actual evidence which he chooses not to make public, nor will I. My personal experiences were decades ago, but not much different.

From a different post:

Quote

Sarabia and Goldsmith are the two names consistently trotted out as Mesoamerican archaeologists who believe the Book of Mormon is true - I was simply wondering if they had opined on this topic given their professions and belief. Why is this silly?

Not silly, naive. They work in the same field that Hasbaz is speaking about.