Narrow Neck Of Land

[Cold Steel]

The Yucatan didn't play much part in anything during Book of Mormon times. However, the Usumacinta basin did. There were a number of important players who were either south or east in Sorenson's correlation, and northeast in Larry's. They were certainly influential during the later half of the Book of Mormon time period, but they seem to have minimal penetration into the Grijalva valley -- which was important early but faded.

I wonder why? In Sorenson's model it's as if it didn't exist. Either it was indefensible and people didn't want to be trapped there in the event of an invasion or it just wasn't considered prime real estate.

After reading Clark's review a number of times, I have to throw my hat in with him over Warr. I've never looked into BoM geography because I thought not enough was known, but I've been fascinated by this topic. After Ainsworth's criticisms of Cerro Veija, has Soronsen budged on that as his Cumorah candidate? (Ainsworth currently believes it's Cerro Bernal, which is further north.)

[grego]

I'm a little curious. So many places to choose from; but it seems that the main thing controlling it, is what is known now in archeology. But this argument seems a little similar to the other arguments made by many that the Nephites and Lamanites didn't exist: "We can't find it (i.e., haven't found it YET), therefore, no." Yeah, I know, it might be a little hard to hide cement buildings, etc.; but what's the difference between those arguing they didn't exist, because we can't find them; and those that they did exist, but only in one place, because we can't find archeological evidence in other places that "fits"?

[Brant Gardner]

Has Soronsen budged on that as his Cumorah candidate?

My impression is that Sorenson is concentrating on his current book and not paying attention to other geographic theories. He spent a long time developing his and I suspect he doesn't see any others as equally viable.

I'm a little curious. So many places to choose from; but it seems that the main thing controlling it, is what is known now in archeology. But this argument seems a little similar to the other arguments made by many that the Nephites and Lamanites didn't exist: "We can't find it (i.e., haven't found it YET), therefore, no." Yeah, I know, it might be a little hard to hide cement buildings, etc.; but what's the difference between those arguing they didn't exist, because we can't find them; and those that they did exist, but only in one place, because we can't find archeological evidence in other places that "fits"?

A good geographical candidate must meet multiple requirements. One of the, of course, is the description that the Book of Mormon gives about geographic elements. Another, and equally important, is the description the Book of Mormon gives of peoples and places. If we find a perfectly wonderful geographic candidate and it wasn't populated until after the end of the Book of Mormon, we are not in the correct location. As with most historical enterprises, the more information we have the better.

As for your suggestion that "we haven't found it yet," I don't think you will hear serious geographers/archaeologists using that particular argument. Much more likely is Clark's suggestion that we have found Book of Mormon remains but we simply don't know how to identify them as different from non-Book of Mormon peoples - much like I am not sure how to tell a Mormon mini-van from a non-Mormon mini-van.

[Cumorah3]

I'm reading Sorenson's book now and am finding it great reading. The one thing that jumps out from the maps in the book is that the entire Yucatan is a blank slate. As far as the BoM is concerned (if he's right), it's as if the Yucatan simply doesn't exist. Perhaps he will cover this later.

Ainsworth has published a lengthy article about the Narrow Pass and the Narrow Passage on Mormon Sites:

http://mormonsites.org/page5.html#narrow

I didn't take the time to open his book to check, but I think he proposes that much of the Yucatan was under water during Book of Mormon times.

[Brant Gardner]

I didn't take the time to open his book to check, but I think he proposes that much of the Yucatan was under water during Book of Mormon times.

Let's hope not, since that theory would be contradicted by the people living there at the time. The larger populations and cities came late to the Yucatan, but people didn't.

[Cumorah3]

Thanks!

Yes, but has any attempt been made to identify Ripliancum (large or to exceed all)? There's a large lake near Cerro Bernal and there's the huge Nicaragua Lake, which would qualify if the Isthmus of Rivas was the narrow neck. It's the largest body of water in the region, in fact.

I'm not aware of a large lake near Cerro Bernal but it's only (if I recall correctly) about 50 miles west of the Gulf of Mexico.

Ainsworth concludes his three part series about the location of Cumorah of the final battles with the observations:

Conclusion:

From the information provided in the three articles I have written, it appears the following characteristics of the land and hill Cumorah are justified:

1. They were in a land adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico.

2. The land of Cumorah and the waters of the ocean were intermingled.

3. There were rivers and fountains around the hill Cumorah. There is no mention of lakes.

4. The hill Cumorah was very large, almost a mountain.

5. You could travel northeast from the hill Cumorah, reaching the ocean.

6. There was a country southeast of the land of Cumorah, between Cumorah and Desolation.

7. There were countries south of Cumorah, between Cumorah and the narrow neck.

8. The boundaries of Desolation extend to the boundaries of Cumorah.

9. The hill Cumorah was relatively close to the hill Shim.

http://mormonsites.org/page5.html#series

[Cumorah3]

Let's hope not, since that theory would be contradicted by the people living there at the time. The larger populations and cities came late to the Yucatan, but people didn't.

With you around to keep me honest Brant, I should have known better than to try to get away with not checking references. :-)

What I was thinking of from Ainworth's book is an illustration of the States of Vera Cruz and Tabasco that prior to the Spaniards were known as "Tlapalco" "flooded or wet lands."

On page 138 of his book "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" Ainsworth writes (excerpts):

"The history of the (Yucatan) peninsula indicates that a large body of people entered the land near Chetumal around A.D. 400... began to build the city of Chichen Itza around A.D. 421...

Linda Schele and David Friedel write... the original father of these people (who built Chichen) was Lord Jawbone..." (which means Lehi.)

Chichen was apparently ruled by three brothers known as the "Lords of Fire."

Ainsworth writes on page 139 (excerpts):

"No major cities had been built in that area (Yucatan) as it had been difficult to access. It also had a hot climate, its soil was almost nonproductive, and there existed no surface rivers. In addition, the land had few natural resources and it was infested with snakes.... Though there are ruins in southern Mexico and Belize that date to 2000 B.C., no cities appear in the north of the Peninsula until hundreds of years later. There is evidence of some habitation of the area which was either an island or separated from the mainland by marshes, before A.D. 400.... Even today, when it rains continuously for days, the strip from Laguna de Terminos on the western side of the Peninsula all the way to Chetumal on the east (above the base of the Peninsula) becomes submerged or so inundated with water as to make it impassable..."

And it goes on. My apologies for possibly being misleading, but it seems that at least part of the Yucatan was subject to flooding.

[Brant Gardner]

My apologies for possibly being misleading, but it seems that at least part of the Yucatan was subject to flooding.

As long as we don't have another geography that requires that land masses be continually submerged. Flooding is, of course, entirely different. I know from first hand that parts of Chicago can flood. Nevertheless, it was there before, during, and after the flood (which kept me there longer than planned).

I would have to see the reference from Schele and Freidel to "Lord Jawbone." I don't remember them using that name - but I could be wrong. In any case, they are translating from either glyphic or iconographic information. Linking it to the Hebrew meaning of Lehi - in this case almost 1500 years later, seems a very far stretch.

[poulsenll]

I didn't take the time to open his book to check, but I think he proposes that much of the Yucatan was under water during Book of Mormon times.

Cumorah3

Ainsworth's suggestion that the Yucatan peninsula was separated from the mainland by water is based on 16th to 17th century maps that show it as an island. Columbus discovered the West Indies in 1492, therefore we have no maps prior to this time and certainly none from Book of Mormon times. There are also maps that show it connected to the mainland, usually with a much narrower connection than that revealed by satellite photography. One of the problems with maps of this period is that they were almost always drawn based on ships navigating along the shoreline. In this particular case they would have found unnavigatable shallow lagoons extending far inland at Laguna de Terminos, especially during the rainy season. Continuing on around the peninsula they would have found a similar situation on the east at Chetumal. With no information about the interior and the normal error in their instumentation they probably assumed that the water was continuous from coast to coast. Remember, longtitude was dependent on the accuracy of their shipboard clocks and a small error could account for a poor estimate of the distance across the isthmus (Astronomy 101)

Larry P.

[Cumorah3]

I would have to see the reference from Schele and Freidel to "Lord Jawbone." I don't remember them using that name - but I could be wrong. In any case, they are translating from either glyphic or iconographic information. Linking it to the Hebrew meaning of Lehi - in this case almost 1500 years later, seems a very far stretch.

"Forest of Kings" p. 362.

If you read p. 138 of Ainsworth's book you will realize that he inserted the Lord Jawbone reference within a larger context that seems quite credible to me. Jerry's book was targeted to a popular audience, not just for a small number of his academic peers, or he would have written it differently.

The stuff of yesterday's science fiction sometimes becomes today's reality as scientists laboriously catch up with yesterday's visionaries.

[Brant Gardner]

"Forest of Kings" p. 362.

Yes, they use that term. Thank you. Of course, it is a rare English name among phonetic Maya names, indicating that they don't have a phonetic reading - just the glyphic representation (which is what I suspected). I know that you are not interested, but if anyone else is, we can talk about the reason that it so difficult to attach the meaning of Lehi in Hebrew to a glyph in another cultural system a thousand years after Lehi.

If you read p. 138 of Ainsworth's book you will realize that he inserted the Lord Jawbone reference within a larger context that seems quite credible to me.

I reread the page. Let's just say that there was very little of Ainsworth's speculations on that page that I would find at all credible. Even when he cites authorities, he misapplies what they said to fit his own interpretation.

Jerry's book was targeted to a popular audience, not just for a small number of his academic peers, or he would have written it differently.

The audience changes the assumptions one makes about how much the audience knows and how much should be explained what kind of language. It doesn't excuse the writer from the necessity of interacting responsibly with the data. Ainsworth has certainly read some good sources. I don't disagree with his sources, just the way he uses them.

[Cumorah3]

I reread the page. Let's just say that there was very little of Ainsworth's speculations on that page that I would find at all credible. Even when he cites authorities, he misapplies what they said to fit his own interpretation.

The audience changes the assumptions one makes about how much the audience knows and how much should be explained what kind of language. It doesn't excuse the writer from the necessity of interacting responsibly with the data. Ainsworth has certainly read some good sources. I don't disagree with his sources, just the way he uses them.

Well, you certainly are consistent Brant! Those of us who followed the Padilla Gold Plate thread will not be surprised that as usual, you have expressed your negative opinions about Dr. Ainworth's research and writings without providing any valid evidence whatsoever to substantiate them.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=16915

You are certainly entitled to express your opinions, and I do sometimes find them interesting. But your favored position here as expert and pundit makes your word much more credible than that of most others, so perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening me and other interested readers so we can understand why your opinions should be considered superior to Dr. Ainsworth's writings.

Why do you not find Dr. Ainsworth's "speculations" credible?

Why do you think that Dr. Ainsworth "misapplies" what authorities have written "to fit his own interpretation?" (Are you sure that Dr. Ainsworth is actually trying to prove something on the page of his book that we are discussing?)

Why do you infer that Dr. Ainsworth does not "interact... responsibly" with the data?

[Cold Steel]

One of the things that Ainsworth mentioned is that there were countries, or areas, between Cumorah and the narrow neck of land. If so, that would indicate that Sorenson's Cumorah is too close. Where does it stipulate the distance between Cumorah and the narrow neck of land? Also, Ainsworth tells the story of a giant snake at Cerro Bernal: "Jose had hit its huge head hard from behind with his machete as it stared threateningly at me, but his machete had simply glanced off."

Being somewhat familiar with machetes, I found this to be a bit unusual. Did he hit it with the flat of his blade? "We believed the wounded snake would pursue us if we returned along the same path we had taken."

I know some of the large snakes can be intelligent, but they tend to avoid groups of humans. Are there many such snakes in the area?

From what I read, the four types of poisonous snakes in Mexico are: red coral, rattlesnakes, nauyacas, and cantiles. The large snakes are pythons, boas, and field snakes. Some 80 percent of snake bites occur when someone is trying to either kill them or move them, and close to 80 percent of all bites are below the knee.

[Cumorah3]

One of the things that Ainsworth mentioned is that there were countries, or areas, between Cumorah and the narrow neck of land. If so, that would indicate that Sorenson's Cumorah is too close. Where does it stipulate the distance between Cumorah and the narrow neck of land? Also, Ainsworth tells the story of a giant snake at Cerro Bernal: "Jose had hit its huge head hard from behind with his machete as it stared threateningly at me, but his machete had simply glanced off."

I ran your inquiry by Dr. Ainsworth. Following is his paraphrased response:

I know of no place in the Book of Mormon where it stipulates the distance between Cumorah and the narrow neck. Nor have I stated anything like that.

Everyone I know who accepts Mesoamerica as Book of Mormon territory agrees that Cumorah is located north of the narrow neck, so that is a given. As I state in part three of my Cumorah series, Mormon 8:2 indicates there is a country southward of Cumorah, to which some Nephites escaped. Since it is certain they did not escape into Lamanite territory, (land south of the narrow neck), logic and deduction places this "southward country," between Cumorah and the narrow neck - as indicated in my article.

Mormon 6:2 indicates some Nephites escaped (from the battle of Cumorah) into the "south countries." Once again, since we can exclude Lamanite territory as a place they escaped to, then once again logic places countries south of Cumorah, which places these countries in between the south border of Cumorah and the narrow neck. I explain all of this in my third article of the Cumorah series.

http://mormonsites.org/page5.html#series

About the snake:

When Jose, Esteban and I were trekking to Cumorah, Jose was in the lead, followed by Esteban, with me in the rear. We were not walking on a trail, as there were none where we were. The area was thick with bushes, under-growth and tall trees. It was extremely hot, and we were being attacked on every side by insects. So, it was not as if we were strolling along a well worn path. At every step we had to push back bushes, cut branches, step over rocks and try not to get slapped in the face with the bush the person in front of you had pushed aside. The whole area is strewn with large boulders, so we were constantly climbing over or around individual boulders or stacks of them.

When we were climbing up and over a stack of boulders, (about five feet high), that Jose had already passed the top of and as Esteban was about to put his feet in the same place, he yelled out there was a snake between him and Jose. Jose then turned and began to head back to where we were standing.

I said to Esteban, "Move so I can get a picture," and I began to prepare my camera accordingly. I got my camera ready about the same time that Esteban moved a little to the side, which coincided with Jose returning to the top of the pile of rocks. I then saw the head of the snake, which looked to be the size of a large rabbit head. That is when I saw the snake looking directly at me - and parenthetically I then forgot about taking its picture.

During the same time frame, Jose swung his machete at the snake, hitting it on, or close to the head. Once again, Jose was standing atop a bunch of large boulders and his footing was precarious at best. I don't know how hard he actually swung under those circumstances, and frankly did not care. Nor do I know if the blow was direct, etc. I just know that I did not see any blood, nor was there any on the machete, as we checked later.

None of the three of us actually hung around and manually checked the snake, we just got out of there. Esteban went over the pile of rocks and I followed. Nor did we hold a "Board Meeting" to see if we could ascertain the precise damage done to the snake. As the three of us discussed this issue later, we all just felt that the snake was not damaged - but we could be wrong.

When we returned, it was Jose who decided to take a different route, for the reason mentioned in the book. We did not have a discussion on the topic with Roberts Rules of Order, etc. Nor did I question what Jose said. It could have been superstition, or gut feelings that he had, etc. I simply don't know. I was in a strange country, a university professor in a jungle, and assumed I should do what Jose said if I wanted to make it out alive.

I don't know how many different kinds of snakes there are in this part of Mexico, but I do know there are some very deadly ones. My expertise was not then, nor is it now, about the snake kingdom. I had placed my life in the hands of a person and simply accepted what he said. Had I been in a class room, and Jose had been my student, and made such a statement about snakes, I probably would have challenged such an assertion. But having survived a violent storm on a cliff, having had no food and water for the whole day, and having watched Jose command the elements, to say nothing of being lost in a jungle, I was prepared to accept what Jose said.

[Brant Gardner]

you have expressed your negative opinions about Dr. Ainworth's research and writings without providing any valid evidence whatsoever to substantiate them.

Of course that is not entirely true. When I gave specifics, you returned to Ainsworth who opined that the question was still open - on some issues where it is hardly open at all. Still, if you want specifics, I'll give some from p. 138.

Ainsworth:

Joyce Marcus of the University of Michigan stated that the people of Teotihuacan were a people separate from the Maya geographically and politically. . . In other words, the people of Ammon could not be considered either Nephite or Lamanite in the traditional sense.

Here we have a statement from authority and a conclusion - apparently drawn from that statement. What Ainsworth does not mention is that this very separation makes it very difficult for Teotihuacanos to be the people of Ammon. If the people of Ammon carry any traces of their cultural origin south of the Nephites - then one would expect a southern influence in Teotihuacan - at least at some point. There is a later barrio of southerners in the city, but certainly nothing that supports Ainsworth's thesis. Certainly there is nothing in what Marcus said that leads to Ainsworth's conclusion. It is not warranted on the basis of this evidence (or any other he had presented).

Perhaps the Lamanites saw in the people of Ammon a fulfillment of their longstanding desire for the birthright. That would help explain the idea of "Mayan" (Lamanite) leaders of city states in the conquered areas making pilgrimages to Teotihuacan in order to obtain the symbols of power and authority.

An interesting speculation, but there is no evidence for it whatsoever. The Maya deference to the Teotihuacanos was the result of active warfare and conquest. The "entrada" of 378 in Tikal is pretty sure evidence. Schele and Freidel (whom Ainsworth has read and favorably cited) are pretty clear about the Teotihuacano military presence and their role in altering the nature of warfare among the Maya. The evidence for Teotihuacan militarism is already strong and further finds are simply supporting widespread militarism. As I noted before - Ainsworth is way behind the current research in his insistence on a pacifist Teotihuacan.

For example - Martin and Grube, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, p. 29

Few, if any, events had such a transforming effect on the Maya lowlands as the arrival at Tikal of a lord called Siyaj K'ak' ('Fire Born') on 31 January 378. This episode would bring not only Tikal, but a whole swate of the Central Area much more directly into the political, cultural and econmomic sphere of Teotihuacan, then at the height of its powers. . .

While the term 'arrival' might seem to have a reassuring neutrality, in this case it constitutes some kind of political takeover, even military conquest. For the Maya, like other Mesoamerican cultures, 'arrival' was used in both a literal and metaphorical sense to describe the establishment of new dynasties, and this was certainly its consequence here. In what would appear to be an instance of direct cause and effect, Chak Tok Ich'aak met his death - expressed as 'entering the water' - on the very same day. His demise was also that of his entire lineage, to be replaced by a completely new male line which seems to have been drawn from the ruling house of Teotihuacan itself.

Freidel and Schele, Maya Cosmos, p. 323

The magical nature of warfare did not change with the fourth-century inception of Venus-Tlaloc war and the victory of Tikal over Waxaktun, but its specific manifestations and political objectives did. Before the fourth century, we believe, warfare was not the wholesale slaughter that it later became. It was fought by rigidly observed codes -- the intent not to destroy neighboring kingdoms but to take captives for sacrifice. Long before the Teotihuacan allies of Tikal arrived on the scene, the Maya War Jaguars had prowled for victims on the open savannas of the lowlands. it was the changing of the rules of conduct and the intent of war associated with the new imagery that eventually led to the downfall of Maya kingship.

My note - in the context, the "new imagery" is associated with Teotihuacan.

Returning to Ainsworth on p. 138, he uses the Chilam Balam of Chumayel to give a 400 A.D. date for people settling in Chetumal. He skips quickly to Chichen and allows the reader to assume that Chichen might have some relation to Chetumal and the 400 A.D. date. Then he gives this information:

the original father of these people (of Chichen Itza) was named Lord Jawbone.

Ainsworth neglects to inform us (as Schele and Freidel do on the very page Ainsworth cites) that the Cocom family (involved in the genealogical chart on the same page) entered Chichen after the fall of Mayapan in 1450 A.D. Without telling us how or why, Ainsworth jumps over 1000 years to a different city and a different person.

That isn't all, however. He has Lord Jawbone be "the original father of these people." He must get this from reading the chart. Schele and Freidel do not say it - nor would they. In addition to the jump of over a thousand years, Ainsworth has selected a name from a chart and made him a "father of these people." The problem is that the chart is of the children of lady Tu-Kul-Tok. "Lord Jawbone" (actually listed as "Jawbone?" in the genealogical chart) is just one of Sibling Group C - which doesn't have a clear relationship to the others - but certainly isn't the "father of these people."

Now we have the connection between the Hebrew for Lehi and this "Jawbone" on the genealogical chart. Certainly that seems like a match - except that it is a reading of a glyph that is probably supposed to be read phonetically and they don't have the right phonemes - it probably doesn't sound like "Lehi" at all. The only link I know of between Lehi and a Mesoamerican depiction of a jawbone is Jakeman's reading of Izapa stela 5, and Jakeman did his work when the Aztec method of a name above the head was all that was known. In the Maya glyphic texts, the name is usually right on the body in a glyph. In addition - Jakeman misread the iconographic element that he minimizes to "jawbone" (which is actually an upper jaw, not the lower, like it is in Chichen.

So, Ainsworth has misread a genealogical chart, has mislead his readers on the time table of the Cocom family in Chichen, and made an unsupported and unsupportable leap from a Hebrew meaning of a name 1500 years earlier to what a jawbone element must mean that many years later in a completely different langauge.

From Ainsworth on p. 138 again:

Instead, "three brothers" ruled the people at Chichen Itza, with none viewed as superior to the others (Forest of Kings, 359-60). These statements suggest that the people of Chichen Itza may have been led there, as well as governed, by the Three Nephites.

The problem here is that Ainsworth seems to be missing two brothers. Forest of Kings p. 360 clearly speaks of 5 siblings. They specifically state (p. 360) "We have seen siblings before in the royal histories of the Maya, but not in sets of five."

These five are also Sibling Group A. So if these are the rulers who led them to Chichen, then Lord Jawbone couldn't be - based on the same chart. Ainsworth simply has it wrong. What he records has very little to do with what is said on Forest of Kings p. 359-362.

OK. That is one page. On one page we have speculation unrelated to the evidence given. We have a continued misunderstanding of the Teotihuacano militarism, we have a misreading of a genealogical chart where a descendant is read as a progenitor, we have the supposition that there are three rulers when the text clear says (and names) five. We have a suggested connection between the name Lehi and an iconographic element of the jawbone, without any explanation of how that Hebrew meaning carried through one and a half millenia through different cultures and a completely different language.

On one page, I am hard pressed to find anything that is correct save the exact quotations from a source - but not the unquoted references - which misrepresent the source.

[Cumorah3]

Of course that is not entirely true. When I gave specifics, you returned to Ainsworth who opined that the question was still open - on some issues where it is hardly open at all. Still, if you want specifics, I'll give some from p. 138. Ainsworth: Here we have a statement from authority and a conclusion...

Well Brant, you certainly are inconsistent! :-)

Wonderful, I'm sure that took some time, much better. I'll run this by Dr. Ainsworth and see if he chooses to respond.

[Cumorah3]

Of course that is not entirely true. When I gave specifics, you returned to Ainsworth who opined that the question was still open - on some issues where it is hardly open at all. Still, if you want specifics, I'll give some from p. 138.

I appreciate you taking the time Brant to provide an explanation intended to support your negative opinions about one page of Dr. Ainsworth's book. In my opinion your effort is certainly commendable compared to what happened in the Padilla Gold Plate thread where Dr. Ainsworth took a considerable amount of time to respond in depth to your criticism of his book and scholarship, and if I recall correctly, you seemed to just ignore it.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?s=&amp...mp;p=1208011303

That message seems to have been mangled during the recent changes to this board, so here is another link to what I am referring to:

http://mormonsites.org/page5.html#padilla

Dr. Ainsworth published a book, so of course he opens himself to criticism. And you are free to liberally crticize his book however you see it, which you do. But when you negatively criticize a fellow LDS scholar, it is my opinion that on this LDS board where your word carries more weight than does that of most other writers, you should make it abundantly clear that you are merely expressing your opinion and your interpretation.

I know Jerry Ainsworth well. He is an active Latter-day Saint and a good man. He is a scholar (Yale graduate, retired professor) with an enormous understanding of the Book of Mormon gained not only by intellectual study, but also by much sincere prayer and fasting.

http://mormonsites.org/page5.html#wanderings

Jerry has an unquenchable thirst to know the truth about Book of Mormon people and their lives. His now aging but still popular book "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" sold by the thousands. He continues to get enthusiastic communications from people who now understand Book of Mormon people and Book of Mormon geography much better than they ever did before.

So when I see quick negative criticism of his book and his scholarship from a fellow LDS scholar, I do what I can to insert my own contrasting opinions and observations.

We've been through this before and I know that Dr. Ainsworth sees no point in exchanging words with you, but nonetheless I ran your criticism of page 138 of Mormon and Moroni by him.

What follows is a paraphrase of his personal communication to me in reply. It is not intended to be a scholarly response to you, but I thought it would be of interest to some who are following this thread.

I plead guilty. I do indeed attend Maya conferences and read the literature, looking for Book of Mormon connections. Not exclusively, but among other interests of mine. Therefore when I see a reference to a Lord Jawbone (Lehi), it does catch my attention.

Having said that, I understand perfectly why Mr. Gardner views my writings as he does, skewing data to make them look/read the way I want them, as that appears to be exactly what he does. As the old saying goes, "Everything looks yellow through the jaundiced eye."

The difference here is that anyone who interprets these data differently than Mr. Gardner, he simply labels as wrong, and then massages things to have them come out agreeing with his point of view - and demonizes those who disagree.

I have never taken the position that I am correct and everyone else is wrong, unlike Mr. Gardner. I have simply stated that when I read deJarney and Pasztory, they are very clear about their View of Teotihuacan. I acknowledge that there are other writers who take a different view. That does not make them right. As stated before, I have attended 95 % of every Maya conference at Yale, U of Pennsylvania and U of Texas for the past 20+ years. (I have never seen Mr. Gardner there by the way.) And people at the conferences are divided about Teotihuacan and are still debating it. The issue is not settled, as Mr. Gardner would lead people to believe, (once again forcing data to conform to his view of the world). And of course this is alright with me - but I understand it is just that, his opinion. When I wrote the book, the popular view about Teotihuacan was that it was a non military polity.

As far as his "ramblings" about the Ahau Jawbone issue, I'm glad that he explains what Scheile and Friedel mean in their book, the Forest of Kings, because this is what they say, contrary to what Gardner ascribes to them.

"Since neither Hun-Pik-Tok nor Jawbone-Fan is tied to any of the sibling sets, we have no way of knowing what kin relationship they may have had with Kakupacal and his siblings. Hun-Pik-Tok moreover, does not get the amount of historical attention we have seen on the monuments we have seen on the monuments of other Maya kings. In stead, he is, at most, an antecedent presence to the sibling sets, either providing them with some form of legitimacy or acting as their ally. Nevertheless, we can assume from all of this evidence that the multiple form of government probably did not originate at Mayapan as some have believed, but in Chichen Itza."

The way I read this is that the authors state, (even show it with their genealogical chart), that there is incompleteness in this genealogy. They therefore show an incomplete genealogy, connecting to Ahau Jawbone at some place and in some way, but it is not clear how.

And parenthetically, even if this Lord Jawbone is not referring to Lehi, (and from this book, neither can be proved), it shows the existence of this name in the Maya culture - which was my primary point.

Just because Mr. Gardner has a different interpretation of this does not make his interpretation correct.

As I have told you before, Mr. Gardner's agenda is not the discovery of truth, but the imposition of "his truth," on everyone else, and even doing so in a mean spirited way. My experience with these kinds of people is that they discover a lot, but seldom the truth. Which once again makes it an exercise in futility for me to respond to his comments.

I'm going to add a brief addendum below to illustrate again my concern about Brant's frequent attacks on a fellow LDS scholar's popular book. "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" was never intended to be a scientific treatise and cannot necessarily be defended as such; nor should it have to be. But that is consistently the way Brant treats it as he goes about seemingly trying to discourage anyone from even reading the book, or seemingly trying to display his "superior" knowledge, or whatever his motivations are. (See the Padilla Plate thread for background information on Gardner's other criticisms of Dr. Ainsworth and his writings.)

Here's another paraphrase from things Dr. Ainsworth communicated to me recently:

There is one additional thing I would like to add about what Gardner wrote, and how he works. He took on the issue of the People of Ammon and Teotihuacan, stating that there was no evidence that they were the people who ran that polity. He does this a lot. He takes a statement of mine, works very hard to not understand it, distort it or skew it some way, and then attack the conclusion of his distortion.

Saying that there were no People of Ammon in Teotihuacan, because they are not reflected in the political leaders of that city, is like saying there are no Mexicans in the U.S.A. because they are not reflected in the leaders of this country.

As you explained to Gardner, I was not writing a treatise on the history of Teotihuacan. The People of Ammon were a people of Peace. The people of Ammon moved into the land Northward. Pasztory et. al. wrote that Teotihuacan was a polity of peace. It was the major city in the land northward.

I assumed a people of Peace would move into a city of Peace. Call me crazy, but that kind of conclusion made sense to me at the time I wrote the book. It still does. Proving there were other kinds of people in, and/or running Teotihuacan, no more proves the People of Ammon were not there, than offering evidence that Anglos run the U.S.A. to prove there are no Mexicans here.

When a country is established that promotes trade rather than war, (such as the USA), people flow to it from all over the world. You end up with Germans, Italians, Russians, Mexicans, Italians, etc. I suspect the same was true for Teotihuacan. So, the people Gardner states were residents of that city, were probably indeed living there. In addition to them, I suspect all other groups were represented, including some descendents from Nephi, (Ammaron and Mormon to name a couple), as well as some of the People of Ammon.

[mickismommy]

Wasn't there a huge change in the topography/ geography of the BoM lands, oh, say, round about the time of Christ's death? Aren't we forgetting that little key piece of information here? BoM lands are not going to look exactly the same as they did back before Christ. Mountains and major bodies of water shifted and changed shape. The world was mourning the death of Christ

Here is the scrip 3nephi 8:5-19 (emphasis is my own):

5 And it came to pass in the *thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land.

6 And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder.

7 And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land.

8 And the city of Zarahemla did take fire.

9 And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.

12 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;

13 And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.

14 And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate.

15 And there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceedingly great, and there were many in them who were slain.

16 And there were some who were carried away in the whirlwind; and whither they went no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away.

17 And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth.

18 And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land.

19 And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did ceaseâ??for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hoursâ??and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land.

[Magyar]

Wasn't there a huge change in the topography/ geography of the BoM lands, oh, say, round about the time of Christ's death? Aren't we forgetting that little key piece of information here? BoM lands are not going to look exactly the same as they did back before Christ. Mountains and major bodies of water shifted and changed shape. The world was mourning the death of Christ

Here is the scrip 3nephi 8:5-19 (emphasis is my own):

That does tend to get forgotten. Suppose that New Orleans had had not even the protection of modern levees when Katrina hit. Suppose it was a much smaller city, more typical of say, ancient Carthage than a modern metropolis. How much of said city might some future inheritors of the American continent expect to find intact and above ground nearly 2000 years later?

[Brant Gardner]

In my opinion your effort is certainly commendable compared to what happened in the Padilla Gold Plate thread where Dr. Ainsworth took a considerable amount of time to respond in depth to your criticism of his book and scholarship, and if I recall correctly, you seemed to just ignore it.

I can assure you that not responding was a choice, not a necessity because I was unable. The reason is pretty clear from this most recent exchange. Dr. Ainworth is not interested in the discussion. In the case of the discussion of p. 138, there are a number of important issues he didn't respond to. Looking over his arguments again, I can see where he pulled them from Forest of Kings but I am confident that no one else would ever get the same information from those pages.

I know Jerry Ainsworth well. He is an active Latter-day Saint and a good man. He is a scholar (Yale graduate, retired professor) with an enormous understanding of the Book of Mormon gained not only by intellectual study, but also by much sincere prayer and fasting.

The faith card again. Are you seriously suggesting that I am not an active Latter-day Saint? That I don't have a college degree? That I haven't studied the Book of Mormon? That I haven't prayed over my studies?

Again, may I plead with you to stick to evidence and not try to make this about who has faith and who doesn't. This should not be an issue of faith. It should be an issue for evidence alone.

I read through the response from Ainsworth. I wrote up a response, and then deleted it. It is pretty clear that he is uninterested in a discussion. Fortunately, Forest of Kings is a pretty popular book and anyone who is really interested can read the sections and decide for themselves. That is the nice thing about relying on evidence. It can be independently verified.

[Cumorah3]

Dr. Ainsworth is not interested in the discussion. In the case of the discussion of p. 138, there are a number of important issues he didn't respond to. Looking over his arguments again, I can see where he pulled them from Forest of Kings but I am confident that no one else would ever get the same information from those pages.

The faith card again. Are you seriously suggesting that I am not an active Latter-day Saint? That I don't have a college degree? That I haven't studied the Book of Mormon? That I haven't prayed over my studies?

Again, may I plead with you to stick to evidence and not try to make this about who has faith and who doesn't. This should not be an issue of faith. It should be an issue for evidence alone.

I read through the response from Ainsworth. I wrote up a response, and then deleted it. It is pretty clear that he is uninterested in a discussion. Fortunately, Forest of Kings is a pretty popular book and anyone who is really interested can read the sections and decide for themselves. That is the nice thing about relying on evidence. It can be independently verified.

You needn't plead with me about anything Brant. I wasn't thinking about you or your personal religious practices at all. I've been writing long enough in threads that interest you that you should realize that faith and God are very important to me. What I wrote about Dr. Ainsworth is consistently in character for me and was not intended as a measure of your goodness versus that of someone else's, as you apparently concluded.

And yes, you already told me that you don't have a doctorate but you do have a graduate degree. I respect you for the time you put into studying your subject.

I note your apparent desire to treat "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" as a scientific treatise subject to peer review and criticism. But Dr. Ainsworth's intention was to write a book for the general LDS audience that would be helpful in strengthening their testimony of the Book of Mormon, and their knowledge about Book of Mormon geography and Mormon and Moroni in particular. He has succeeded remarkably well in reaching that goal, as thousands of people have attested. So I understand his lack of desire to have an academic contest with you about who's interpretation of what some expert wrote is superior.

You say that a book about Mormon and Moroni "should not be an issue of faith." You want to keep faith and God ("the faith card") out of the discussion perhaps because then you can refer to your interpretations about what some third party expert wrote, contrast that with what Dr. Ainsworth was trying to convey in his book, conclude that your way of seeing things is superior, and get away with it because most of the readers here do not have a graduate degree in whatever it is you took the time to study.

You seem so unshakably determined to negatively criticize Dr. Ainsworth's book that in comparing something he wrote to your own interpretation of something someone else wrote, you boldly declare: "I am confident that no one else would ever get the same information from those pages."

Well, I am bold enough to declare my confidence that for every statement made by an academic such as yourself about anything, there will always be another equally qualified academic to state just the opposite. (As we have witnessed in this matter we are now discussing.)

The book "Forest of Kings" that you recommend may be "pretty popular". But so is Dr. Ainsworth's book "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni." Anyone who is really interested can read Ainsworth's book and decide for themselves if it should be critically analyzed as a scientific treatise, or if it should instead be taken for what it is, the sincere and fruitful work of an LDS scholar who adds significantly to the knowledge and testimony of the Book of Mormon and its people.

For me personally, faith and God are vastly more important in judging things of a religious nature than are the contradictory here today, changed tomorrow, statements of academic experts. The "substance" that faith evokes, is my "evidence" of things unseen as I and many other mortals strive to learn the truth about things that are of interest to them.

It's a nice thing to know that a spiritual testimony of such evidence as is contained in the Book of Mormon can be independently verified.

That's how I see it...

[Brant Gardner]

Cumorah3:

Yes, I have read your response. I don't see any gain for either of us (or anyone else) in continuing.

[Cold Steel]

Cumorah3: Your topics have been of interest and they've dragged me into searching more on this topic and considering the various avenues that are being investigated. However, your admiration (and bias) for Dr. Ainsworth's research has put you a bit on the defensive. There are many opinions out there and everyone can bring something to the table.

Dr. Ainsworth seems willing to discuss any aspect of his research dispassionately and if we can keep the topics narrowly focused, that's how they should be discussed. I think Brant Gardner has been clear that there are some areas he's not comfortable getting into, and it's clear you admire and respect Larry Ainsworth. But opinions will vary.

[charity]

cumorah 3, you said this was a paraphrase of Dr. Ainsworth. "As I have told you before, Mr. Gardner's agenda is not the discovery of truth, but the imposition of "his truth," on everyone else, and even doing so in a mean spirited way. My experience with these kinds of people is that they discover a lot, but seldom the truth. Which once again makes it an exercise in futility for me to respond to his comments."

I hate to make a judgement on Dr. Ainsworth based on what you said he said. But if he said the above, there is a built in contradiction in his own words. "agenda is not discovery of truth, but the imposition of his truth on eveyrone else." That sounds like a pot calling what he supposes to be a kettle black. I have read Brant's work as presenting a theory, and then refuting, with evidence, other arguments. Because he finds holes in the argument does not mean he is trying to impose "his truth."

Of course, I really wish Dr. Ainsworth would speak for himself. I am always quite skeptical of the "futility for me to respond" claim.

[Cold Steel]

John Warr's response to the FARMS review is here.

http://www.geocities.com/jwarr87480/response.html