Plain English BMG - Book of Mormon cities have

[Cumorah3]

Plain English BMG - Book of Mormon cities have been found in the Americas!! Prove it....

It is my observation that there is a lot of interest in Book of Mormon Geography (BMG) on this FAIR board. It is also my observation that most of the currently active threads seem to be mainly scholarly talk among those who have a good background in such things as Mayan history. That's interesting reading of course, but I thought it might be useful to concurrently run a "Plain English" Book of Mormon Geography thread for those like me who haven't spent so much time in school. (Scholars are invited to participate of course, but please try to keep this thread plain English rather than a discussion amongst yourselves, thanks.)

Everyone is invited to also discuss pertinent related matters in this thread.

I'll try to keep this thread alive with comments of my own. But it is my hope that others will make frequent on-topic posts, and an interesting long-term teaching/learning experience takes place for everyone.

Here we go then:

Definition of Book of Mormon Geography (BMG)

Professional and scholarly research into BMG has been ongoing for 40 or more years. But most Latter-day Saints probably have still never heard of BMG, and most probably accept without even thinking about it, the tradition that Cumorah of the Golden Plates in New York is the same as Cumorah of the Final Nephite Battles. It is my opinion that someone needs to get the word out to the general LDS audience, it's such an important matter.

There are several current theories about where the Book of Mormon stories played out. But the consensus of opinion among scholars today seems to be the Mesoamerican theory. That theory, although yet unproven, proposes that most Book of Mormon events took place in what is today southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and El Salvador. The evidence for that to me is convincing and compelling.

Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, as far as I am concerned, I accept the Mesoamerican theory and won't put much if any effort into any other theory. But, I'd like to expand the definition of "Book of Mormon Geography" to include all of North and Central America. I expand the territory from just Mesoamerica so that our playing field can include the many (as yet scientifically unproven) possible physical evidences of Book of Mormon people that have already been found in the USA.

Garth Norman, for example, is apparently currently excavating a site in southern Utah that may prove connections between that location and Mexico more than a thousand years ago. Other explorers who are not credentialed in archaeology or anthropology have found an abundance of ancient evidences near places that prophets have said Moroni once dedicated modern temple sites.

A heartbreaking attitude - my Opinions

It is truly heartbreaking to me that the current attitude among many professionals is to automatically write off as "fake" things that don't fit into the current worldview created by past discoveries published by their colleagues and peers. Some LDS professionals may be forgetting when they go to work, that the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and other items related to their religious beliefs, would also not fit into the tight box and rigid behaviors their discipline demands. (E.g. did the ancients have the tools and skills to build a Liahona?) And in the meantime, they may be ignoring or too quickly labeling "fake" those very things (such as communications that may be genuine Reformed Egyptian) that the ancients left for us to discover.

Yes, I know, I may get a lot of opposition to those opinions (if anyone reads them) but that's how I see it today. Maybe tomorrow, if new evidences come into my awareness, I may see it differently. I do know that BYU archaeologists are well respected among their colleagues and peers for good science in Mexico and elsewhere, and I don't think they are commissioned to look for Book of Mormon evidences. (In fact, it is my understanding that they tend to deliberately avoid even the very appearance of doing that very thing.)

But in any event, I believe that knowledge about BMG should be made available to the general public, especially the general LDS audience, and not be restricted to a few professionals and scholars as seems to be what's happening today. What do you think?

Wanted - bold and daring Professionals

It is my hope that daring credentialed professionals will soon emerge who will boldly, validly, reliably, and without bias, test and prove one way or the other the many promising physical evidences related to the Book of Mormon and its people that have been found by non-professionals. Only then will this important emerging field of LDS studies become credible, and receive the attention and the funding it needs to thrive and make an impact on what the world thinks of the Book of Mormon.

At present the brakes seem to be tightly on to not pursue the search for and the testing of things that could provide physical evidences of Nephites in the Americas. If my observation is correct, and there really are promising things to scientifically test, shouldn't that atttitude change? It seems to me that deliberately ignoring possible physical evidences is exactly the thing those who oppose the Church and the Book of Mormon would want us to do. (Then of course, if LDS professionals did dare to publicly look into possible physical evidences, the critics would accuse them of trying to "prove" the Book of Mormon.)

That's how I see it. What do you think?

Book of Mormon Geography (BMG) is an emerging and as yet unproven field of studies.

But there's excitement and great interest!

800,000 Hits

That BMG website that I'm not allowed to "advertise" on this board, in it's first six months received 800,000 hits and 17,000 visitors. To me that's very encouraging and bodes well for the ongoing success of BMG. There is a huge opportunity, in my opinion, for graduate students to prepare themselves for an exciting career in Book of Mormon Geography Studies.

For example: Who's going to prove the location of Cumorah of the Final Battles?

Statement by Dr. John Clark

Dr. John E. Clark, Director of BYU's New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF) facility in Chiapas, Mexico wrote:

"If any place merits archaeological attention, it is Cumorah. The very word elicits a series of empirical questions that can only be addressed through archaeology... Before archaeology can reveal Cumorah

[poulsenll]

It is my opinion that if there is enough interest expressed, and a public clamor for change is raised, that funding sources will be found and professional archaeologists and anthropologists may begin to bestow upon BMG the attention it deserves.

Cumorah3

There are a few who are interested and they too deplore the lack of interest in investigated already available artfacts. The following artcle at FARMS tells of someone who discovered numerous clay plates with inscriptions that are unrelated to Mayan heiroglyphics and then just reburied them.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=188

One of the reasons for lack of interest, in my opinion, is that artifacts which do not advance current theories or suggest new world - old world interaction and communication are either downplayed or ignored.

As far as members of the church are concerned, I found that when I was teachng the Gospel Doctrine class on the Book of Mormon that most did not even read the assigned scrptures let alone think about the geography that may have impacted interactions between the Nephtes and the Lamanites. For example, Why did wars almost always take place in the same locations and not just haphazardly all over the place? Why were certan locations suitable for establishng a defense line and not others?

These are just a few of the many questions that could be answered by a better understandng of BoM geography.

Larry P

[Maya]

I have always been interested in Arceology, even before I become an LDS. But I have no education on that, so just a unlearned one, who knows nothing, but has opinions.

I have a book written by an LDS either archeolog or an iterrested person on South America.. it is pretty old and now it is stil packed in boxes like all our books... because of we moved.

I have red opinions about the sceenery of MB beeing in North America by the lakes.... but I am not buying that... not yet anyway. I tend to think that they were in Mexico and south.

discovered numerous clay plates with inscriptions that are unrelated to Mayan heiroglyphics and then just reburied them

It is so sad we come to this in arceological work that people really do this if the peaces wont fit, just in order to "not loose face". I think it is unbelievable that found things wont be investigated, even though some things in the same group have already been shown very old, like the ones Antworth... or what his name was again had got hold of. Fakes usually cost you and these he got free, and there was more....

And even sadder is that LDS arceologs say that IF they find some golden plates with reformed egyptian, they dig them deep back in to the ground.

The anties will never believe them no matter WHO finds them anyway. It is sad that non LDS arceologs try everything they can to not to find connections with what they are researching and BM and LDS Arceologs do not dare to find anything as they are afraid of their place as honored arceologs.

I have ever since I heard about MB, placed it so that Mayas have a big meaning in it... Mayas have always interrested since I was a child... Notice my name

Just my 2 pence worth.

By just a member whos daughter has studied arceology and whos youngest son loves history and arceology. I wish I was rich!

Those records this people will yet have, if they accept of the Book of Mormon and observe its precepts, and keep the commandments.

SO REPEND !!! Be worthy to recieve them! If you do so I will do my best too!!

I also have a feeling there will be something found from Finland east about the 10 tribes.... just my hunches...

Maya

[Moksha]

Allegory doesn't have to square with reality. The moral lesson and symbolism of the allegory is sufficient. While Jonah could not really have been in the belly of a big fish for three days, we can take the symbolism of it to apply to our own pitfalls and predicaments.

For many, there is no need to search for the Shire when the Shire is in the heart.

[Cumorah3]

Allegory doesn't have to square with reality. The moral lesson and symbolism of the allegory is sufficient. While Jonah could not really have been in the belly of a big fish for three days, we can take the symbolism of it to apply to our own pitfalls and predicaments.

For many, there is no need to search for the Shire when the Shire is in the heart.

I really don't understand what you mean Moksha, I may be well off what you intended to convey. But if you are alluding to the Book of Mormon stories being just allegories within which to communicate eternal gospel principles learned by an ancient people, I disagree entirely.

I do believe that Lehi and Sariah and their family really lived in Jerusalem, migrated to the Americas, and their descendents there lived out a thousand years of mortal existence, a portion of which is recorded in the Book of Mormon.

I also believe that they left many traces of their having been here.

But I also think that there were other people who lived in the Americas at the same time. Identifying Nephites with our present proven knowledge (other than by the possibility that they were the only ones in the Americas who could write at that time) could be sort of like looking for Chinatown in the ruins of today's New York City a thousand years from now.

A lot has already been found though. It's really just a matter of proving those things were Nephite. Once that has been done, for example by proving Cumorah of the Final Battles and finding what Nephite things looked like at that time, professionals should be able to really move ahead with identifying Nephite things in those museums Dr. Clark talks about...

[Cumorah3]

There are a few who are interested and they too deplore the lack of interest in investigated already available artfacts. The following artcle at FARMS tells of someone who discovered numerous clay plates with inscriptions that are unrelated to Mayan heiroglyphics and then just reburied them.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=188

One of the reasons for lack of interest, in my opinion, is that artifacts which do not advance current theories or suggest new world - old world interaction and communication are either downplayed or ignored.

As far as members of the church are concerned, I found that when I was teachng the Gospel Doctrine class on the Book of Mormon that most did not even read the assigned scrptures let alone think about the geography that may have impacted interactions between the Nephtes and the Lamanites. For example, Why did wars almost always take place in the same locations and not just haphazardly all over the place? Why were certan locations suitable for establishng a defense line and not others?

These are just a few of the many questions that could be answered by a better understandng of BoM geography.

Larry P

Where are the Scholars?

Thank-you so much for that post Dr. Larry. As you mentioned in another thread, you visited with me in my home once so I know you to be a credentialed scholar and a gentleman. Your comments agreeing that there is a general lack of interest among scholars and professionals to scientifically investigate known artifacts are therefore of significance to me. I didn't know if many academics would publicly agree with that observation.

Thank-you too for the interesting link to the FARMS article about unfinished investigations into Anthon-type writings. I'm a mere novice in these matters, and not a scholar, but I already personally know where there are many other examples of Anthon-type writings, some of them found in the USA. To this date, archaeologists have not identified the writings, but they could very well be Reformed Egyptian. Tracking down these writings could be the best possible way to identify Nephites in the Americas, because they may have been the only people with written communications in that 1,000 year period. Find where they left their writings and you'll find some of the physical things they surrounded themselves with. Find some of those physical things in the right time periods elsewhere, and you'll find Nephite dwellings and cities. At least that's how my amateur mind sees it. But of course, nothing's easy...

It seems to me that the Nephite cities have been staring us in the face for decades, in the jungles of Mesoamerica. It seems to me too that what is quite possibly their writing has also been known and staring us in the face for decades. But the professionals just aren't going after it!

Perhaps their lack of interest or action is because as you commented: "artifacts which do not advance current theories or suggest new world - old world interaction and communication are either downplayed or ignored." It would upset the world their discipline has constructed if such strange things were found in the land and proven to be genuine.

Where are our BYU scholars, professionals, and graduate students in archaeology and anthropology??? Why aren't they vigorously following up on these things?

You conclude: "These are just a few of the many questions that could be answered by a better understandng of BoM geography."

That has been exactly my own personal experience and why I'm so passionate about Book of Mormon Geography for everyone, not just for scholars. Knowing a bit about BMG has opened up for me huge new vistas of understanding of the Book of Mormon, and has brought to me vivid dreams of its people.

I pray daily that a genuine and sincere interest in BMG will develop among the Latter-day Saints. And I pray too that a public clamor will be made for LDS professionals to take a much greater interest, and a leading role in developing Book of Mormon Geography Studies, and a credible catalogued publicly available body of BMG knowledge.

Only then do I think we will be allowed to "find" and interpret still hidden ancient records....

If there are people reading this who have skills and/or contacts, it is my hope that you will do what you can to get the word out to the general LDS audience that BMG is alive and well and poised for success as soon as the pros climb on board and take a serious look at what's available to be tested. Whiile LDS pros have been focussing on the same things their non-LDS peers and colleagues are working on, non-professionals have been exploring and finding a huge number of possible physical evidences of Nephites in the Americas.

That's how I see it today.

[urroner]

I was reading in Helaman last night where Nephi caused a famine to overcome the land and for a period of time, it didn't rain and finally the people begged him to undo the curse. He was thrilled they had changed their ways and repented and asked God to remove the curse. Everybody had changed their ways and were righteous because of what they had seen and knew....well, at least for a short time and then they were back to their old ways.

Elijah called fire down from the heavens and performed a great miracle and everybody in Israel knew about it, but is spite of this great miracle, nobody really changed. So he moped and went to the mountains and asked God to kill him. His was worthless.

God sent a strorm, a fire, and an earthquake, great and powerful signs, but nothing changed until Elijah heard the still, small voice.

Great miracles don't change anything except usually bring condemnation upon others and that really isn't what God wants. It's the small miracles that do, things we don't even notice or if we did, we wouldn't consider them miracles, just a part of life.

I would love to have more work done in archeology in Mesoamerica, but so what if a big city full of Nephite stuff was found and we knew it was Nephite stuff, like a big piece of graffitti saying "Nephi loved his wife, but it came to pass that he kickedLaman's butt." Sure more people might join the Church, but so what. An academic testimony ain't going to cut it.

All I can say is let God decide when to bring this things to light in His own time and in His own way. It might be through members of the Church, but it would probably be better done through non-members.

[Cumorah3]

.

Reformed Egyptian in Chichen Itza

The moderators do not allow me to quote from anyone else's emails, so I need to be careful only to paraphrase my email communications with experts and scholars of BMG.

I discussed the FARMS article linked in a message above with a scholar.

If I understood him correctly, here is a tidbit that I learned today:

There are two very large stones, (about four feet tall), in the museum of Chichen Itza that have what is probably Reformed Egyptian on them. Why no one has ever noticed them or said anything about them is a mystery. They were found at the bottom of a ceynote. (A deep natural well, fairly common in the limestone of Yucatan.)

The official report by the professionals is that the characters are Latin, although they aren't similar to any known Latin. The professionals therefore say that they are characters that new priests chiseled into these stones, in an effort to practice writing Latin.

They did not use paper to practice, but chisels and stone?

I also learned the following after I wrote the above, and thus the edit:

(Paraphrase)

The problem is you cannot test/date stone. And all they are going to say is, the writing is Latin, and at that point probably remove the stones from the museum and hide them. There is no professional on this planet that wants to be associated with the discovery of Reformed Egyptian.

[KevinG]

Cumorah3,

Excuse me for asking, but it sounds almost like you and Dr. Ainsworth are asking why Scholars in the areas of South American archaeology aren't taking you more seriously and flocking to your school of thought.

My experience with archaeologists is that they try not to go into a site with a previous bias as to what it is (or was) so they can avoid the kinds of co-opting problems that ancient egyptian archaeology experienced in the 1700s and 1800s and early 1900s.

[Cumorah3]

Cumorah3,

Excuse me for asking, but it sounds almost like you and Dr. Ainsworth are asking why Scholars in the areas of South American archaeology aren't taking you more seriously and flocking to your school of thought.

My experience with archaeologists is that they try not to go into a site with a previous bias as to what it is (or was) so they can avoid the kinds of co-opting problems that ancient egyptian archaeology experienced in the 1700s and 1800s and early 1900s.

To be biased or not to be...

Please understand that although he is a good friend, I do not speak for Dr. Ainsworth, and he does not ask me to write for him. We do not hold to a certain fixed "school of thought" that we are trying to promote. It is our desire, as I expect it is of most interested people, to find the truth about Book of Mormon Geography. The truth in a comprehensive way has yet to out, but Jerry and I both lean towards the prevailing scholarly theory that most Book of Mormon stories physically played out in Mesoamerica. (Not South America as you say.)

But yes, I think you may be right about the bias archaeologists take into approaching a new site. I think you'd have to dig up a huge part of Mexico to just stumble upon a good Book of Mormon site. It seems to me that a better "bias" would be to dig at the most promising sites rather than to deliberately avoid them because you might be biased in a certain way towards them.

Does that make about as much sense as the reason given why archaeologists may avoid the most promising Book of Mormon sites?

To me, an unlearned outsider, it's just a pile of confusion.

But thanks for your good comments. If I understood them correctly, you've perhaps hit upon one of the many reasons why today's professionals sometimes seem to outsiders to be working with their eyes blindfolded. If it's so, maybe it's because that's what their discipline demands of them, so, I suppose, they never appear to be "biased".

[juliann]

And all they are going to say is, the writing is Latin, and at that point probably remove the stones from the museum and hide them. There is no professional on this planet that wants to be associated with the discovery of Reformed Egyptian.

I'm sure the noise of all the black helicopters would tip people off.

[Brant Gardner]

Cumorah3:

There are two very large stones, (about four feet tall), in the museum of Chichen Itza that have Reformed Egyptian on them. Why no one has ever noticed them or said anything about them is a mystery. They were found at the bottom of a ceynote.

Of course I would love to see the information. There are, of course, some serious questions that we should ask about them, particularly as relates to the Book of Mormon.

1) How did reformed Egyptian get from the Nephites in AD 400 to Chichen - at least 600, probably 800 years later?

2) How do you write reformed Egyptian in Latin (letters, I presume)? Is there both Latin and reformed Egyptian on the stones?

Scholars miss things all the time. There are many that don't see what is in front of them because it isn't supposed to be there. However, armchair archaeologists are even more prone to see what isn't there. As always, data should come first. Only after we have good data can we make any decisions.

Are the stones published anywhere?

[KevinG]

But thanks for your good comments. If I understood them correctly, you've perhaps hit upon one of the many reasons why today's professionals sometimes seem to outsiders to be working with their eyes blindfolded. If it's so, maybe it's because that's what their discipline demands of them, so, I suppose, they never appear to be "biased".

I'm guessing thats probably the number one answer given the flak that LDS scholars take from critics on this very point. Fortunately it seems the criticisms are more from the anti-mormon crowd than the actual scholars and their peers.

[Cumorah3]

1) How did reformed Egyptian get from the Nephites in AD 400 to Chichen - at least 600, probably 800 years later?

2) How do you write reformed Egyptian in Latin (letters, I presume)? Is there both Latin and reformed Egyptian on the stones?

Scholars miss things all the time. There are many that don't see what is in front of them because it isn't supposed to be there. However, armchair archaeologists are even more prone to see what isn't there. As always, data should come first. Only after we have good data can we make any decisions.

Are the stones published anywhere?

Stones found at the bottom of a well.

Sorry, that's all the information I have at present Brant. If I find more I'll post it here.

1. My understanding is that the stones were found at the bottom of a deep natural well. So I suppose they could have been thrown in there anytime. And of course they could have been brought to the Cancun area from anywhere as well. (If that's where they were found. Of course just because they are in a Chichen museum doesn't necessarily mean they were found nearby.)

2. I don't think anyone seriously thinks the letters are actually Latin. My understanding is that is how the local experts explain the existence of characters that they can't read and that are unlike other known characters found in that area.

It is not my intention to use those two rocks as "evidence" of anything other than that there are known writings chiseled into rocks that currently cannot be read by professional archaeolgists, and that apparently do not fit into what they believe ancient America to have been like. Those two rocks are just two of many known (to non-professionals) artifacts that MIGHT be reformed Egyptian and therefore in my unlearned mind are worthy of valid, reliable, and unbiased scientific investigation.

My source for that information is not an "armchair archaeologist" and has examined the "data" by looking at the stones themselves. As far as I know the stones are still on display in the museum. (Unless the "black helicopters" got to them.)

Thanks for participating in this thread Brant, you are welcome to comment anytime.

[grego]

Love it!

I remember the urgings of Pres. Kimball towards members, and the urgings of many presidents and leaders to BYU.

I think I understand and agree with Cumorah3. And while I understand his interest in certain particular things, I think that's because he has an interest in general things. I think people who are really looking for truth, are open to much more than "their" contribution.

If I found something "helpful", would I bury it? Heck no! If I found something "not helpful", would I bury it? Not that, either. Especially when sometimes what we think is "helpful", is not, and sometimes what we think is "not helpful", really is.

I once wrote a letter to BYU about something similar. It seems like every year, there's basically no news about any true progress/ developments/ discoveries they've made in any area in the whole university. That's what happens when you're doing something you're not supposed to be doing, and get so "professional" that you are afraid to be who you're supposed to be. (I didn't even get an email response. ) I think it will be many more years before I will feel remotely comfortable with the phrase "the Lord's university".

[Maya]

From a very comfy armchair... LOVE IT TOO!! Waiting PATIENTLY for new knowledge... this way or that, until it all is reveald! Not that it would shake my belief of the most important that is BM.

Any good boks lately about this stuff... north or south ???

It stil is difficult for me to understand that possible evidence wont even be checked out... well ofcourse there is always the MONEYproblem! (at least I have that)

[Brant Gardner]

Cumorah3:

If I find more I'll post it here.

Please do - both post it and find more. Unfortunately, the history of Mesoamerican research is overfilled with literature that makes fascinating claims based on what someone has seen in the art. Eric Von Daniken's spaceman interpretation of Pacal's funeral art was the most widely dispersed.

The history of LDS interpretations of New World materials in the context of the Book of Mormon isn't much better. We have had theories that posit that entire regions were under water during time periods when archaeology finds remains of people living there. We have had numerous sites photographed and presented to the LDS population as representative of the Book of Mormon - even when they Book of Mormon has been ended for hundreds of years. We have had indiscriminate use of mythological materials that the authors did not understand very well - usually conflating cultures that were vastly different in time and space from the Book of Mormon.

There are a number of scripts in Mesoamerica. Of all of them, only one can be read. For the rest the samples are too small to allow for any hope of translation. In some cases, there may be scripts that are not recognized as scripts (and there may be some geometric designs that look like they might be scripts but might just be designs). At the FAIR conference, Mark Wright told me that one of his professors had recently realized that there is a glyphic script in Teotihucan, but that it was painted so large that it wasn't recognized as language.

In the case of the stones in Chichen, there are reasons to be cautious in discussing them in any terms that even sound like a similarity to the Book of Mormon. Most Mesoamerican scripts did nto travel well outside their linguistic group. The Maya glyphs encoded language and existed during the time of the Aztec empire - but the Aztecs never borrowed the system nor attempted to adapt it. That was most likely due to the different nature of the two languages. The glyphs work only becuase the vocabularly of the Maya is frequently bisyllabic and the Aztec language produces very long words. The Maya system wouldn't adapt.

For that reason, it would not be automatically assumed that a notational system that might have been uniquely Nephite would have survived (particularly if the characters encoded an underlying Hebrew as many think). When the Nephite culture died, the reason for the script dies. Therefore finding it in Chichen is questionable with regards the Book of Mormon because there isn't much logic that can argue for a continued presence that long.

The second problem is one of distance. The best information for the Nephite homeland is much further south. Objects were traded all the time, but to have a plausible connection to the Book of Mormon, the stones would have to be portable and have some value that would have had them carried that far. Possible, but unusual.

Finally, while it is true that stone cannot be dated, art often can. There are stylistic horizons that would allow guesses as to the time range and culture of creation - depending upon what is on the stones.

My source for that information . . . has examined the "data" by looking at the stones themselves.

That is a good start. However, there are a lot of people who see Mesoamerican art in museums every day and have no idea what they are seeing. No doubt the person who reported this is much more adept than most. I suppose I have a philosophical problem with tossing statements around that don't have solid substantiation. I have nothing against theories, but they ought to be qualified heavily until the argument can be made.

I assume that even though we have clearly disagreed, we don't disagree that we ought to support the Book of Mormon with the best scholarship available. Wouldn't you agree that the Book of Mormon deserves support that can be demonstrated?

For way too many years we have had good faithful members produce works trying to support the Book of Mormon that simply cannot stand up to the light of scholarship. That has been changing recently, but still slowly.

Grego:

I once wrote a letter to BYU about something similar.

Grego, I have no way of knowing what you included in your letter or to whom wrote it. I spoke with John Clark a year or so ago and he was telling me stories of how often good church members come to him with proof of the Book of Mormon (not that yours was - just that it is at least a parallel situation). They tend to be earnest, but earnestly wrong. He has had "portraits" of Lehi, where his response was, "no, that is just a rock." He indicated that this kind of thing happens all the time.

If you have great information, write it up and submit it for publication. I suspect that letters may get the same kind of polite attention that the Lehi portrait rock did.

[Avatar4321]

Forgive me, but i cant seem to figure out what the original post meant. ive read it several times and read the responses, but i cant really seem to figure this out. Is the original post claiming that Book of Mormon cities have been found and identified as such?

I cant imagine this would stay hidden long if true. I long for the day when we will find concrete evidence of the Book of Mormon in the New World. But until we do, I will be content with the witness of the Holy Ghost which is much more convincing anyway.

Perhaps if we all prayed enough the Lord would bless us with the physical evidence we desire. Who knows.

[Cumorah3]

I remember the urgings of Pres. Kimball towards members, and the urgings of many presidents and leaders to BYU. 

If I found something "helpful", would I bury it?  Heck no!  If I found something "not helpful", would I bury it?  Not that, either.  Especially when sometimes what we think is "helpful", is not, and sometimes what we think is "not helpful", really is. 

I once wrote a letter to BYU about something similar.  It seems like every year, there's basically no news about any true progress/ developments/ discoveries  they've made in any area in the whole university.  That's what happens when you're doing something you're not supposed to be doing, and get so "professional" that you are afraid to be who you're supposed to be.  (I didn't even get an email response.    )  I think it will be many more years before I will feel remotely comfortable with the phrase "the Lord's university".

.

Can unhelpful become helpful?

BYU has operated an archaeological research facility (NWAF) in Mexico for about fifty years. They are known among their colleagues for good science. That probably means that this Church funded facility does everything exactly the same way everyone else does it. It is most likely that most members of the LDS Church have never even heard of NWAF.

Less than a year ago when I was serving a senior mission in Macau, China I emailed a BYU professor a question about something. The response? An emphatic one-liner: "Where did you get my email address?"

A few weeks ago I emailed a BYU biology professor a question about how long it takes lichens to grow on rocks. I received a polite detailed reply.

It may have been personalities or even a bad hair day, but my guess is that one of the major differences in those two email exchanges was because the biology professor had useful professional information to pass along to me, and the other professor did not, and was too proud to admit it.

That may be a stretch, but decide for yourself.

Thank-you very much for your comments Grego, I really appreciate what you had to say. There is a lot of wisdom in your observation: "Especially when sometimes what we think is "helpful", is not, and sometimes what we think is "not helpful", really is."

The scholar who has most of the Padilla gold plates in his possession is concerned that someday those plates may prove to be "helpful" but by then may have been lost. (See the following thread for a back and forth pros and cons discussion about those plates that have yet to be validly scientifically tested and may contain samples of reformed Egyptian writing. http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=16915 Some experts who have never even seen the plates come down very strongly on the 'not helpful" side and others are waiting for them to be tested. I don't think anyone right now, including myself, is strongly defending them as "helpful." But some of us are still hopeful.

It would be really nice Grego if you would find and post here some of the quotes you are referring to in your opening statement:

"I remember the urgings of Pres. Kimball towards members, and the urgings of many presidents and leaders to BYU."

Enjoy the day.

[Cumorah3]

Forgive me,  but i cant seem to figure out what the original post meant. ive read it several times and read the responses, but i cant really seem to figure this out. Is the original post claiming that Book of Mormon cities have been found and identified as such?

Perhaps if we all prayed enough the Lord would bless us with the physical evidence we desire. Who knows.

.

Why the title?

Similar to people only looking at the top ten or so results of a Google search, anyone new coming to this message board would probably only look at the first one or two pages of listed threads to decide what to read and what to ignore. Hundreds of other threads are lost until someone who was previously reading writes a comment and brings that formerly "lost' thread to the front page again. It's a constant concern for someone who started a thread and is passionate about continuing it, to keep that thread on the first one or two pages.

So, to help with generating interest and keeping the Plain English BMG thread on the first one or two pages, I deliberately titled the thread in a thought-provoking, hopefully attention-grabbing manner:

"Plain English BMG - Book of Mormon Cities have been found in the Americas!! .... prove it."

But yes, as quoted in the first message, Dr. John E. Clark, head of the LDS Church archaeological facility in Mexico (NWAF) boldly declared that Book of Mormon cities have indeed been found:

"Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." John E. Clark, http://farms.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=137 Professor of anthropology, BYU, Director of NWAF, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, No. 2, 2005 p.42 The entire article is titled "Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=376 published by FARMS 2005.

According to Dr. Clark, Book of Mormon cities have been found. But, they have not been identified as such.

Thus the need to "prove it."

I hope that helps make this discussion more meaningful for you.

You say: "Perhaps if we all prayed enough the Lord would bless us with the physical evidence we desire..."

It is my hope too that "we all" will pray for that, and will also take the initiative and do what we uniquely can do as individuals to work towards that actually happening in our time.

Thanks for your comments avatar4321.

[gaucho]

So, Cumorah 3...I have browsed through your web site and found it very interesting. Are you or Dr. Ainsworth going to reveal the location you feel is the original Cumorah?

[Cumorah3]

So, Cumorah 3...I have browsed through your web site and found it very interesting. Are you or Dr. Ainsworth going to reveal the location you feel is the original Cumorah?

Where's Cumorah3?

It's not really a secret and it's mentioned in the Reading Room I think. I just continue to think it prudent to sort of semi disguise the real name of the hill so every treasure hunter in the world doesn't show up there thinking they're going to find things to sell, and making the locals hostile. Do you not agree?

It was not Dr. Ainsworth who first proposed what I code-named "Cumorah3" as a possible location for Cumorah of the Final Battles.

Dr. Ainsworth is just following up on the second choice at a meeting of scholars and professionals held many years ago when the consensus was to accept Sorenson's Hill Vejia instead of Cumorah3 as the most likely location.

Dr. Ainsworth details his reasons for thinking it's more likely Cumorah3 in articles he wrote that I published in the Reading Room.

The scientific jury is still out on the matter and Dr. Ainsworth is doing his best to come up with physical evidence sufficient to persuade the professionals to take another look at their second choice. I've been there myself and I think Ainsworth has nailed it!

But of course there's that little matter of convincing the professionals and experts.

[Cumorah3]

The history of LDS interpretations of New World materials in the context of the Book of Mormon isn't much better. We have had theories that posit that entire regions...

The Game of Adversaries

Thank-you Brant for that lengthy post. I will try to respond to it appropriately, and I hope that others wlll do likewise.

For whatever reasons, this new and fascinating BMG hobby of mine seems to have sometimes cast me in the role of defender/promoter of the interests of those like me who did not stay in school long enough to be authorized to place scholarly initials after our name that automatically label us "expert" in some field of study.

As a promoter of the emerging field of Book of Mormon Geography, I am on the side of those who crave new information, want things to change, and hope that the professionals will soon anxiously and actively engage in BMG studies and provide valid guidance and direction. (Not just ignore the world outside academia and continue on doing what they have been doing for fifty or more years without visible results to anyone other than themselves. My opinions.)

I am aware of items that hold much promise as possible physical evidences of Book of Mormon people. But it is my observation that many professionals and experts ignore most things that have not been discovered by one of their own. And many seem to be all too quick to label things "fake" without even validly testing them. (See H. Curtis Wright's "Something of the Ancient World" comments quoted in my first message in this thread.)

With respect, it is my observation that you Brant Gardner see yourself in the role of defender of the status quo and of the current position of LDS archaeologists and anthropologists. You seem to place a great deal of faith in what some scholars and professionals write, and tend to consider anything else immediately suspect. Perhaps you feel too a need to "protect" those who do not have the knowledge about BMG that you apparently have. (Pardon me if I'm wrong on any of those points, that's how I read you based on the few messages written by you on this board that I have read.)

But if it is so, that is well, there is a need for opposition in all things to maintain a viable balance in the human intellectual experience. That's exactly why I think the professionals should actively engage in this controversy with all the tools of their trade (valid, reliable, unbiased scientific testing) rather than do their all too quick "it's a fake" routine that really serves no good purpose other than to preserve the status quo, which I don't think is satisfactory to the interested general LDS audience.

Given that, perhaps you will be willing Brant, for the purposes of this discussion, to go along with the two of us being "adversaries", "opponents", or perhaps "devil's advocates"; each with a position or team to defend as we all struggle together in this game to express ourselves adequately along the path towards ultimately learning the truth of all things.

Please allow me to make it clear to all who are interested, that it is my hope that soon BMG Studies will be headed by credentialed professionals who are anxiously and actively full-time engaged in following up on leads from professionals and non-professionals alike. It is also my hope that the general LDS audience will be provided with all the known pros and all the known cons about the things that interest them, and then be left to decide for themselves what to believe and what not to believe. (With the exception of things that pertain to our salvation, which should of course be left to the scriptures and the General Authorities of the Church.) I do not agree with the position some influential people take that people should be spoon fed authoritative "facts" by a small group of experts, some of whom openly declare their intention to "protect" the "unsophisticated."

I think it likely that almost everyone in the Western world knows that experts and professionals of all kinds seldom agree when in their own company, or as expert witnesses in courts. It is my opinion that all "arm of flesh" learning, though valuable, is suspect. With the exception perhaps of a few fields such as engineering, the best anyone can do, expert or novice, is to publish their observations and hope it adds positively to the never-ending discussion. I will not personally allow one or two "experts" to dictate "facts" to me when I know I can find another expert who can easily discern the jargon and "prove" those things not to be facts at all.

That's how I see it today, but oops, I guess I should be responding directly to the parts of Brant's message where I think I might have something of interest to say.

Here's a try, and yes, I respect Gardner's constant call for caution, a balance is necessary. But with respect for his valuable contributions to LDS culture and learning, and his good name, I often find myself questioning his authoritative style of declaring things as though there was no possibility of there being another side to the story.

Gardner says: "Eric Von Daniken's spaceman interpretation of Pacal's funeral art was the most widely dispersed."

Yes, but Von Daniken is a household name because he wrote for a popular audience. I expect that he got a few things right too. I would not condemn his book for the things some experts disagree with. Like Dr. Ainsworth's popular book, Von Daniken's was not meant to be a scientific treatise.

Gardner says: "There are a number of scripts in Mesoamerica. Of all of them, only one can be read. For the rest the samples are too small to allow for any hope of translation."

I am aware of other "samples" that are not small at all and if the professionals would give them the time and attention they deserve there is actually great hope that they could be translated. Dr. Poulsen in an earlier message in this thread says:

"One of the reasons for lack of interest, in my opinion, is that artifacts which do not advance current theories or suggest new world - old world interaction and communication are either downplayed or ignored" (by the professionals). Poulsen provides a link to a FARMS article that discusses promising but unfinished research into Anthon-type "scripts" found in the Americas.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=188

Gardner writes several paragraphs about the two big stones I mentioned that are in a museum at Chichen Itza and may have reformed Egyptian writings on them. He doesn't write in good plain English but I think it's acceptable language for this thread because I invited scholars here and what would they know about writing in plain English?

Gardner concludes his expressions of caution about the stones at Chichen with:

"No doubt the person who reported this is much more adept than most. I suppose I have a philosophical problem with tossing statements around that don't have solid substantiation. I have nothing against theories, but they ought to be qualified heavily until the argument can be made. "

My comment is: "Brant, the stones are in the museum. Why don't you go have a look at them yourself and then report your own expert observations back to us instead of just putting them down so quickly without having even seen them? Isn't it possible that they really could be reformed Egyptian like the other scholar thinks them to be?" I really don't understand what the problem is to simply report that there are two stones in a museum in Mexico that a scholar has looked at and thinks the writings may be reformed Egyptian. Should I have waited for a BYU professor to some day discover them and provide "solid substantiation" before even mentioning them in a medium such as the FAIR message board?

Gardner says: "I assume that even though we have clearly disagreed, we don't disagree that we ought to support the Book of Mormon with the best scholarship available. Wouldn't you agree that the Book of Mormon deserves support that can be demonstrated? For way too many years we have had good faithful members produce works trying to support the Book of Mormon that simply cannot stand up to the light of scholarship. That has been changing recently, but still slowly."

I respect your respect for "scholarship" Brant but will retain the right to define "scholarship" for myself. I don't understand how you and I have "clearly disagreed" about anything in this thread. I don't think that I made an authoritative statement about anything. In fact I wrote: "It is not my intention to use those two rocks as "evidence" of anything other than that there are known writings chiseled into rocks that currently cannot be read by professional archaeologists, and that apparently do not fit into what they believe ancient America to have been like."

But yes, I certainly agree that the Book of Mormon deserves "the best scholarship available." However, I am not going to personally allow someone else to decide for me what constitutes "best scholarship" and what books I should or should not read in my search for the truth of all things.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your comment asking me if I agree that the Book of Mormon deserves support "that can be demonstrated." I suppose that some scholars and experts may have some definition of how to "demonstrate" support for the Book of Mormon. You'll have to explain that to me, I just didn't leap with you on that one...

Gardner says: "I have nothing against theories, but they ought to be qualified heavily until the argument can be made."

Hopefully that applies as well to any authoritative statement made by an expert, and that their theories too will be accompanied by heavy qualifications and solid evidence.

Gardner goes on to supply advice to Grego: "If you have great information, write it up and submit it for publication. I suspect that letters may get the same kind of polite attention that the Lehi portrait rock did."

And that pretty much sums up the present situation: "Write it up and submit it for publication" is the way academics do things. And I suppose because of their credentials some of them actually do get published in scientific journals that are read by their peers and colleagues.

But this is a plain English thread. I don't think the non-scholars amongst us can do things that way. We have to be content to just report things we believe to be true or interesting in media such as this message board, and let the readers decide for themselves what to believe, and what not to believe after other opinions and information have been expressed.

I don't know if Gardner was meaning to be sarcastic with the latter part of his advice to Grego, but it is my personal experience that writing to some academics who currently hold positions at universities does not necessarily result in "polite attention." In fact it can result in some pretty severe name calling, and the throwing of sticks and stones.

I'm sorry Brant, but I am just too aware of the great divide that currently separates some professionals and the rest of the world to keep silent on these matters. Hopefully all of the above is fair comment and acceptable to the moderators.

Enjoy the day all, and please chime in - plain English will do here, no credentials needed...

[grego]

Well, I think I understand both sides at least a little.

I think Brant Garnder is probably worried about all the stories, discoveries, etc. that push the Mormon agenda, and so much time and hoopla is put into it to show it to everyone, and many lay members (and GA's use it as evidence--only to find out, whoops... IIRC, a GA's talk was taken out of conference records or such because of that. Then there are the BoM tours, etc. Not much of any of that stuff is helpful. While regular folks can often have great discoveries and insights, there can be more to it, and at least sometimes, there really is.

No, my diatribe was about BYU academia not being willing to break from mainstream academia in lots of things--BYU is trying to use the world's standards to create their worth, and they're afraid of being laughed at for doing something different, even if that something different was plausible and even sound in theory and real-life observation. Until BYU can learn that its worth is somewhere else and in other things, it's not going to ever really be what it was meant to be. IOW, if I try to prove my value to my mates by being good at what they like, and what they consider to be cool, I'll never be a good LDS, because I'm just cheating myself. Granted, it doesn't hurt, and yes, it does take skill, etc.--but when you concentrate on that, you lose perspective (if you ever had it in the first place).

Yes, I have submitted a few things to "experts"--they either ignored it, because they didn't get it or they didn't get it first, or they had already published something that had a contrary view (their publishing would be on the line), or they had their own ideas, or they were busy with other things, or they had kind words, etc. And?

[Brant Gardner]

Cumorah3:

I very much doubt that he had anything at all to do with it, (locked threads)

You may be assured that I have nothing to do with it, personally. Frankly, I rather doubt that any moderators make decisions on closing threads with me in mind at all.