Scholars Seek Site Of 1540 Battle

[cinepro]

Dr. Peterson said:

Professor Clark is not presenting affirmative evidence for the Book of Mormon. He's demonstrating the weakness of a common negative argument. He's pointing out the really quite obvious fact that failure to have located "Made in Zarahemla" on an ancient Mesoamerican potsherd doesn't demonstrate that it wasn't.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you're right. Clark makes this affirmative statement:

Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums.

If he had said:

Book of Mormon cities may have been found, they might be well known...

then his point would be obvious, pointing out that we just don't know, and critics overstep their bounds to categorically deny the possibility that the cities may have been found.

But Clark's original comment is a statement in the affirmative.

--------------------------------------------------

Dr. Peterson also says:

Do you have any evidence that Professor Clark's academic peers are aware of his statement and have averted their eyes in embarrassment at their colleague's irrationality? Please do supply it, if you have it.

Here, the Book of Mormon believer stumbles into the classic quandry.

Even on the shrunken scale of current apologetic thinking, the Book of Mormon's claims are huge. I mean huuuuuuge. A thousand+ years of culture, warfare, geneaolgy, and detailed religion of a pre-Christian and Christian culture numbering in the thousands upon thousands.

If the Book of Mormon were historically true, it would be like a brick thrown in the serene pond of New World studies, with the evidence sounding a huge "kerplunk" as the waves radically redefine every New World field of archaeology and anthropology. Every night, thousands of New World scholars kneel and pray that something even 1/100 as momentous of the Book of Mormon might come forth to tell them about the people living in Central America.

If there were evidence that even some of the claims of the Book of Mormon were true, and if there were any chance that the claims of the Book of Mormon could actually have predictive (or even descriptive) power to provide information about the ancient inhabitants of the America's, there would be scientists dancing in the streets.

But instead, we have LDS scholars using intellectual shoehorns to nip and tuck the text of the Book of Mormon to make it appear compatible with current archaeological thought. And even being so brave to take modern mesoamerican scholarship and trying to show how it might fit with the text of the Book of Mormon (if you just redefine this word here...).

Maybe one day, an LDS scholar will have the cajones to publish a paper to his non-LDS peers actually arguing a point from the Book of Mormon. I mean, with all this detailed biographical info about ancient meso-american royalty, you'd think someone could put together something. But until there is actual evidence for such things outside of the circle of those predisposed towards belief, such articles will continue to grace only the pages of the Ensign and JBMS.

[charity]

cinepro, are you about to post the detailed geography of Middle Earth or Oz as it fits into meso-america? I noticed you did not address that in your reply to Daniel Peterson.

[Daniel Peterson]

John Clark is a believing Latter-day Saint. He believes that Book of Mormon cities have been found, and that the real problem is "simply" identifying them as such. So do I. So do a number of others who have given the question serious consideration. But he doesn't offer the proposition that Book of Mormon cities have been found as evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. If that's what you think he's doing, you're simply wrong. He manifestly doesn't say that, and (I know him quite well) he never intended to say that.

(Now, of course, Professor Clark does argue, elsewhere, that the discovery of significant ancient Mesoamerican urban centers rather like those described in the Book of Mormon offers a certain degree of support for Book of Mormon claims, since the existence of pre-Columbian urbanism was presumably unknown to the unlettered and untraveled young Joseph Smith. [That's why Joseph's discovery of John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood's 1843 Incidents of Travel in the Yucatan was so electrifying for him.] And this is especially so since the chronology of the pre-Classic period, in terms of the rise and fall of urban areas and in terms of demographics, seems to fit the chronology described in the Book of Mormon. But those are separate arguments.)

And, yes, I'm extremely interested in your detailed attempt to match The Lord of the Rings and/or The Wizard of Oz up with the geography and archaeology of Mesoamerica. You made a huge (and, I think, entirely vacuous) claim. I would love to see you support it.

[Cold Steel]

Is there a list of pre-Columbian cities that date back to the times of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is a historical document, why couldn't any of those cities be those mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

John Clark, as a believing Latter-day Saint, is making a statement of science bridged with faith. He's proceeding from the premise that the BoM is a historical document (not something that should come as a shock to our critics).

I would like to see a list of the cities and I would like to know what would disqualify them from being Book of Mormon cities. It's only natural that we can't prove they are BoM cities; neither can archeology prove that they aren't. But if they date back to the times that the BoM purports, it seems they would automatically be candidates. So what would disqualify them?

That's the question.

[cinepro]

cinepro, are you about to post the detailed geography of Middle Earth or Oz as it fits into meso-america? I noticed you did not address that in your reply to Daniel Peterson.

Whoa, whoa, whoa now. Let's not put the cart before the horse.

Obviously, Oz and Middle Earth were not in Mesoamerica. That's where the Lamanites and Nephites were, and everyone knows you can't have two fictitious lands coexisting with a real culture.

The only exeption to this is when the lands "crossover", and people from one land visit those of another, but these are very dangerous, and are usually a last-ditch attempt to revive public interest, or a gimmick to lend legitimacy to one of the creative works (such as when DC's Batman fought The Incredible Hulk in 1982, or the New Testament's Jesus visited the Nephites around 33AD)

Everyone knows that Middle Earth didn't take place in Mesoamerica; it was in what is now called "Eastern Europe". Sadly (or luckily), the face of the Middle Earth changed drastically after the destruction of the ring, so the ancient geography will never match up exactly. But modern scholars are optimistic, especially since they now realize that the ancient battle statistics were traditionally overinflated for dramatic effect, so a battle that supposedly engulfed hundreds of thousands may have only been a few dozen guys with wooden swords and green robes.

And Oz wasn't in Mesoamerica either. Before the final magical spell was placed over it, it could easily be seen by airplane or balloon north of Kansas, south of Canada. Oz archaeologists generally place the Emerald City in Dewey County, South Dakota, although there is some support for the recently expressed and controversial "Two Emerald City" theory. As with the Book of Mormon, our record of Oz begins in an easily identifiable place (Kansas), but due to lack of precision in recounting the details of getting there, a final location is unlikely to be agreed upon.

[Bill Hamblin]

Could you slow down for a fellow as poor as I? What evidence do you have that the destruction of Nephite civilization resulted in the absence of cultural and liguistic continuity?

That's what the BOM says; it also describes systematic attempts by Lamanites to erase Nephite cultural artifacts (Morm 6:6b). At any rate that is beside the point.

Can you, or can you not, provide any ancient, pre-400 AD evidence for the pronunciation of several dozen Mesoamerican cites? It's a simple call for evidence. If you have it, present it. If not, admit that you don't have it.

[cinepro]

I would like to see a list of the cities and I would like to know what would disqualify them from being Book of Mormon cities. It's only natural that we can't prove they are BoM cities; neither can archeology prove that they aren't. But if they date back to the times that the BoM purports, it seems they would automatically be candidates. So what would disqualify them?

Well, at least we know that in 36AD, everyone was Christian and there were no wars.

4 Nephi

1 And it came to pass that the thirty and fourth year passed away, and also the thirty and fifth, and behold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were abaptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.

  2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

So, if a city is found and it shows signs of pagan worship or warfare during that time, it can be assumed it isn't a Book of Mormon city.

[The Dude]

cinepro, are you about to post the detailed geography of Middle Earth or Oz as it fits into meso-america? I noticed you did not address that in your reply to Daniel Peterson.

Whoa, whoa, whoa now. Let's not put the cart before the horse.

Obviously, Oz and Middle Earth were not in Mesoamerica. That's where the Lamanites and Nephites were, and everyone knows you can't have two fictitious lands coexisting with a real culture.

The only exeption to this is when the lands "crossover", and people from one land visit those of another, but these are very dangerous, and are usually a last-ditch attempt to revive public interest, or a gimmick to lend legitimacy to one of the creative works (such as when DC's Batman fought The Incredible Hulk in 1982, or the New Testament's Jesus visited the Nephites around 33AD)....

ROFLMAO!

[charity]

cinepro, where is the cart before the horse? It is you, yourself who said you could fit any supposedly ficticious land into the geography and archeology of Central America.

You are trying to weasel out of your claim. It is time to either stand up like a man and admit you made an outlandish claim, or do what you said you could do with any ficticious land.

We are waiting.

[Cold Steel]

Well, at least we know that in 36AD, everyone was Christian and there were no wars. ...So, if a city is found and it shows signs of pagan worship or warfare during that time, it can be assumed it isn't a Book of Mormon city.

That's a fair statement if cities can be dated to specific times.

Is there any evidence of devastating earthquakes from that time period? Are there any cities that show evidence of being destroyed or burned or buried?

Is there any evidence that the cities from the BoM time period cannot be BoM cities? And again, how many cities do we know of from that period?

If the city of Jerusalem had no written identification, how can we expect to know what the cities were called?

[maklelan]

Perhaps it

[maklelan]

If the Book of Mormon were historically true, it would be like a brick thrown in the serene pond of New World studies,

I'm curious where you get the idea that New World studies are a "serene pond". I only assume that you mean there is consensus in all things relating to New World archeology and anthropology. If you mean something else, please elucidate. If you do mean that everyone is agreeing I think you may need to do a couple of lit. reviews.

[maklelan]

So, if a city is found and it shows signs of pagan worship or warfare during that time, it can be assumed it isn't a Book of Mormon city.

Do you have evidence of such a city in the proposed Book of Mormon area, corresponding to that time period, or are you saying that, hypothetically, if archeology one day happens to turn one up, it would spell disaster? Perhaps you are positive they are there, but just haven't yet been identified as such?

[Daniel Peterson]

You tried to score a cheap and illegitimate point with a vacuous boast, cinepro:

I can show you how either Oz or Middle Earth, or any other supposedly fictitious land, can be made to fit the geography and archaeology of Central America.

I've called you on it.

But now you evidently have no intention of making good on your boast. You won't demonstrate your remarkable capacity to fit Oz, Middle Earth, or any other fictitious land into the geography and archaeology of Mesoamerica. Why not? Because it would be a dauntingly difficult thing to do, and would most likely not work at all. You almost certainly could not do it. Which is now dawning on you.

Your more recent silliness will distract some people from that, perhaps, but it won't change the reality. And the reality is that plausibly demonstrating a comprehensive fit between a narrative text and the geography and archaeology of Mesoamerica is neither easy nor trivial nor insignificant. Your pretense of being able to perform such a task for "either Oz or Middle Earth, or any other . . . fictitious land," was entirely empty.

[Gervin]

Can you, or can you not, provide any ancient, pre-400 AD evidence for the pronunciation of several dozen Mesoamerican cites? It's a simple call for evidence. If you have it, present it. If not, admit that you don't have it.

Reality check. There is no correlation between the pronunciation of Mesoamerican cities, ca pre-400CE and any alleged cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I know I say this at the risk of having DP break into a logic conniption and post the lyrics to Hurdy Gurdy Man. There is no evidence. In all due respect to your paper and the papers of others who are always cited, there's no there there. This thread bears it out in all its convoluted glory; Book of Mormon cities have beeen found but can't be identified. The museums abound in Book of Mormon artifacts but no has the intelligence to understand them as such. Archaeology is no good because every trace of Book of Mormon culture has been destroyed because half a verse in the Book of Mormon talks about the threat of destroying sacred records. It's pathetically sad. And a sad sack shall lead them.

[Bill Hamblin]

Reality check. There is no correlation between the pronunciation of Mesoamerican cities, ca pre-400CE and any alleged cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Since you speak with such absolute certainty, perhaps you could give us the evidence for the pre 400 AD pronunciation or, say, 10 Mesoamerican cities based on the inscriptional evidence. Since you are certain there is no correlation, you must have examined the actual evidence, no?

[Daniel Peterson]

Reality check.  There is no correlation between the pronunciation of Mesoamerican cities, ca pre-400CE and any alleged cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Professor Hamblin, M. Gervin has no idea what the issue is. He doesn't have even the faintest idea why you brought up the matter of pre-Classic city names.

I know I say this at the risk of having DP break into a logic conniption and post the lyrics to Hurdy Gurdy Man.

Professor Hamblin, you should know (in case you haven't already figured it out) that M. Gervin dislikes logic. Mention of it irritates him. (It's easy to see why.)

This is a waste of time.

[Gervin]

Since you speak with such absolute certain, perhaps you could give us the evidence for the pre 400 AD pronunciation or, say, 10 Mesoamerican cities based on the inscriptional evidence. Since you are certain there is no correlation, you must have examined the actual evidence, no? 

I am absolutely certain. If you think I'm wrong then simply refute my stubborn and illogical belief by showing me why one would even consider making such a correlation. And why are you even asking for Mesoamerican city names?

[Bill Hamblin]

Professor Hamblin, M. Gervin has no idea what the issue is. He doesn't have even the faintest idea why you brought up the matter of pre-Classic city names.

Professor Peterson,

I find it quite astonishing that M. Gervin cannot provide evidence for the pre-Classic pronunciation of any Mesoamerican city, yet is absolutely certain that none of them can be correlated with the BOM. Remarkable, really.

[Bill Hamblin]

And why are you even asking for Mesoamerican city names?

Gervin,

I'll try one last time, and then I will surrender to the inevitable darkness.

How do you propose to determine whether or not a BOM city corresponds or does not correspond to an ancient pre-Classic Mesoamerican city.

In my world, it requires:

1- We have a BOM city name

2- We have a pre-Classic Mesoamerican city name

3- We compare and contrast the two to see if there is or is not a correlation

Without Pre-Classic Mesoamerican city names, there is absolutely no way to try to correlate Pre-Classic cities with BOM cities.

How does it work in your world?

[Tchild2]

Cinepro offered:

Well, at least we know that in 36AD, everyone was Christian and there were no wars.

And we know that this Christian, warless and "having in common" all things society lasted some three hundred years and was the apex of Nephite society. Hardly a subset of the indigineous pagan natives.

[Daniel Peterson]

In Gervinworld, it is enough to have one side of a comparison. If you want to compare A to B, it's enough to know a teeny bit about A. You don't have to know anything at all about B.

In mathematics, this would be rather like solving for x without actually having an equation.

Example:

Teacher: "x + 8 . . . "

Gervin: "x = 27!"

Teacher: "But, Gervin, I hadn't finished giving you the equation yet. It's 'x + 8 = 13.'"

Gervin: "That's ridiculous. x = 27. You're just talking about a piece of logic. Big deal. Your convoluted teaching style proves that algebra is nonsense.!"

[Gervin]

Professor Hamblin, you should know (in case you haven't already figured it out) that M. Gervin dislikes logic. Mention of it irritates him. (It's easy to see why.)

This is a waste of time. 

DP, you're like a tour guide on one of those Land of the Book of Mormon tours. Wading through the forest past Mayan ruins ("you can't prove these aren't Nephite temples!") and cenotes ("you can't prove that this wasn't a Lamanite swimming pool!"). You are so logically correct. But I'm still back at the travel agents office in the States looking at the brochures and wondering, "why Mesoamerica?" In my book, your logic train never leaves the station; you've got nowhere to go, man. Hmm, reminds me of a song ...

[Daniel Peterson]

It would be better, by far, if it reminded you of evidence and analysis. But perhaps you're wise to stick to songs.

[Cumorah3]

Cinepro offered:

Well, at least we know that in 36AD, everyone was Christian and there were no wars.

And we know that this Christian, warless and "having in common" all things society lasted some three hundred years and was the apex of Nephite society. Hardly a subset of the indigineous pagan natives.

I'm very far from being a scholar, but if carbon or whatever dating can with precision zero in to "Mayan" ruins for a specific 200 year period, would this suggestion not be a viable way to go about looking for Nephite cities in the first two centuries AD?

Or are there any archaeologists interested and daring enough to do such a study at promising places?

What about the bias issue? Can an LDS archaeologist who believes the Book of Mormon to be true and historical embark on such a study with the blessing of his campus and discipline?

Are there other related issues that most of us non-scholars are not aware of that might prevent BYU archaeologists from actually trying to find physical evidences of Nephites in Mesoamerica?

I know those who have a spiritual testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (I include myself among those) are not looking to archaeology to provide "proof" of the Book of Mormon, we already know it is true.

But I for one would like to know a whole lot more about the Nephites than we learn from Mormon's summary as found in the Book of Mormon.