Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[Brant Gardner]

I once found John L. Sorenson's work convincing but then studied Mesoamerican history from mainstream scholars, and so I am puzzled that you have studied the issue and still found his work credible. It looked credible to me because if you compare the general patterns on which he focuses - increase in population, more sophisticated society, more fighting, then less population, etc. - there is a broad parallel. But then reading Mayan, Zapotec and Olmec history convinced me that there was no genuine parallel.

Kirk:

I missed your post earlier, else I would have have responded. I found Sorenson's work pretty compelling as well, and checked him out. However, my subsequent conclusions are much different than yours. I suspect that since 197? when I first read Sorenson's manuscript I have read more on Mesoamerican than you have as well as other antropological/ethnohistorical works where I could examine methodology. I simply cannot agree with your assessment.

For example, Sorenson identifies the Nephites with the Mayans and one of their major cities with a major Mayan city, but the Mayan were on the Atlantic side, Sorenson has the Nephites on the Pacific side, and there is no real overlap in terms of culture and historical events - the Mayans were thoroughly pagan. The population sizes are also all off, way off.

Unfortunately, almost everything you just said is incorrect - save that Sorenson has Nephites closer to the Pacific than the Atlantic. However, your assessment of the extent of the Maya is certainly incorrect. There were Maya on the Atlantic side, but not until much later. Earlier Maya are closer to the coast - but more specifically in the highlands - which is where Sorenson places them. However, Sorenson also recognizes that the Book of Mormon peoples leave Maya lands by B.C. 200 - which you seem to have missed.

As for the Jaredites, Sorenson matches them with the Olmecs, but (1) the population sizes are off by a factor of about a thousand (as in 6,000 to 6 m.),

Since I don't remember Sorenson estimated purely Jaredite populations, and since he indicates taht they mixed with pre-existing peoples, and since all estimates of early populations are guestimates open to lots of revising - I can't agree with any of this statement.

(2) their religion was thoroughly pagan and apparently revolved around a jaguar figure, and

You are obviously not well acquainted with the history of iconography and religion. Are you aware of how many pagan symbols are incorporated into Christianity (including the lamb)?

(3) the political history was more stable, and didn't match even once the difference in population sizes is excluded.

This is absolutely incorrect. I'm not sure who you are reading, but it sounds like theories from 20 years ago.

I concluded that Sorenson's methodology was to cherry-pick those historical facts that fit his theory, and then not even bother letting his readers know that they were only a small portion of the facts, and not very representative.

Given that your statements about your readings do not accurately represent your sources, I am highly suspicious of conclusion about Sorenson's methodology. I suspect that I have a much more intimate relationship with both his data and his conclusions. I have seen one or two times when he might be accused of cherry-picking - but that would be quite minor and a very unfair characterization.

As for the Mayan glyphs, I know that Mayan generally has been deciphered and at least some of the cities and many of the rulers are named. I'm pretty sure that's not true for all of them.

I would suggest the following in case you haven't already read them:

Ancient Oaxaca, by Blanton, et al (most relevant to the Olmec/Jaredites)

The Cities of Ancient Mexico, by Sabloff

Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, by Coe

The Maya, also by Coe

Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, by Hudson

The World of the Ancient Maya, by Henderson

I have them. The Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens is Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube, but the way. I have read all of those. On the Olmec, you will be better served (more recent information) by Richard Diehl's The Olmec. Nevertheless, these sources do not say what you say they say.

[Brant Gardner]

That's an interesting take given that many ancient cultures that had a wide dissemination of architecture and culture have been identified as such.

Since you are so clearly conversant on Mesoamerican archaeology, please tell me the answers to the following:

What did the people in Izapa call themselves. What ethnicity were they? What language did they speak?

What did the people in Teotihuacan call themselves. What ethnicity were they? What language did they speak?

What was the real name of the people who have been called Olmec? What was their ethnicity. There is a guess as to what their language was. Do you know how that was guessed?

All of those are some pretty important cultures from the time of parts of the Book of Mormon. Please tell me why you think that we know so much when we don't know the answers to the above?

However, it would seem to me that the cultures found in the Book of Mormon are so peculiar and the language such that the cities and artifacts found thus far would be readily identifiable as such.

Then you should be able to tell me why you think they are so peculiar and that they had such a different spoken language. While you are at it, please explain your theories about the absence of unique material culture for the Hebrew entrance into Canaan.

It seems a little brash to dismiss other cultures entirely that are identifiable as those cultures and re-label them.

It seems a little brash for me that you would opine so heavily on topics with which your clearly unacquainted. I see no indication that you have any real understanding of either archaeology of the issues involved in comparing archaeology to texts.

[Brant Gardner]

Hi Brant

Iâ??m in construction, we specialize in historic restoration, we have over thirty projects on the historical register, I deal with archeologists all the time. I have never dealt with one that comes out with a preconceived notion of what they are going to find.

Nor does a hypothesis require that one have a preconceived notion of what will be found. However, I would challenge your statement that they don't have a preconceived notion. They expect that they will find sites that, if they work in the US, will date most likely to post 1700s and if they are lucky, an earlier native population. If they happen upon a site that is much older, they are surprised (pleasantly). However, the very surpise tells you that it is contrary to expectations.

LDS archeology does not find a artifact and then try to determine what it is, they come in looking specifically for things that will support the BOM and ignore what is already known about existing antiquities.

On what authority do you make such a crazy assertion? First, about whom are you speaking? Second, the only continuing foundation devoted to archaeology that has any connections to the LDS church is the New World Archaeological Foundation. Their reputation is impeccable. I can't think of any example (other than rank amateurs, who can hardly be called archaeologists) who fit your description.

I have e-mailed many Mesoamerican archeologists and actually corresponded with a few on the issue, and they do not go in there looking for a preconceived theory, they let the finds come to them and analyze them for what they are and make determinations on the facts.

You are confusing preconceived notions with both hypotheses and expectations. No reputable scholar working on the Book of Mormon makes data fit a preconceived notion. However, all scholars find surprises in their data that change the way they have seen something. If you want an example of how an LDS organization does archaeology, check out the publications of the NWAF. Check their reputation with your sources. Then, watch the way you are phrasing you questions, because you are using loaded vocabulary very loose and fast and making unwarrated substitutions of concepts.

This is done objectively because they do not have a preconceived agenda. LDS archeology reflects more of a Indiana Jones movie if anything.

Nope. Wrong on both counts. Objectivity is when you allow surprising data to recast your conceptual universe. That happens all the time. It also happens, frequently, that anomalous data are sometimes excluded because it shouldn't be there. That is the case of several of the horse bones that were found in anomalous strata and have only recently been tested and found to confirm the anomalous dating. As far as your characature of LDS archaeology, I would really like to have an example of what you mean. I can't come up with one, and I am familiar with much of what LDS authors have written, at least on the Book of Mormon.

You didnâ??t get my point. One of the first rules is hermeneutics let the document interpret itself, there is only one true interpretation and that is what the author intended,

You will get lots of arguments on that one, but I agree that it is important to determine the meaning from the standpoint of the author. Of course, understanding the author is the critical question for the Book of Mormon. You wouldn't be approaching that question with a preconceived notion, would you?

A book or document may help verify a find, but not at the expense of the rest of the finds or the whole context of the book, it must all be complimentary, or your barking up the wrong tree.

This isn't the whole picture either. Sometimes the text speaks of things that the artifacts do not. In that case, neither says anything about the other directly. However, they should both come from the same world and be encodings of that time and culture. There are a number of issues involved.

LDS archeology is not complimentary to Mesoamerican finds, its contradictory,

Really? One example, please. Where in anything that is published by the NWAF would you find support for this interesting declaration?

it ignores the vast amounts of data that secular archeologists have found and written about and projects a BOM slant.

Well, when LDS scholars speak about the Book of Mormon, I grant you that they have a Book of Mormon slant. I would strongly deny that to do so requires ignoring vast amounts of data that secular writers have discovered. Could you please explain how Dr. Clark is able to ignore those vast amounts of data, much of which he has helped to establish?

So far, you are very heavy on insinuation, but I haven't found anything that you can support.

[Tchild2]

What would Nephite ruins look like?

Something that isn't Mayan, Olmec, Aztec, Toltec...etc.

[maklelan]

Something that isn't Mayan, Olmec, Aztec, Toltec...etc.

That's like a thousand years from now saying, "What would Mormon ruins look like?"

"Something that isn't American."

Lemme ask you a question. I drive a Jeep Wrangler. Is that gonna be an indicator of my religion if it gets dug up a thousand years from now? Are they gonna say, "See?!? We knew there were Mormons!!" Many artifacts are not exclusive to specific sub-cultures, especially dwelling places.

[Gervin]

Well, when LDS scholars speak about the Book of Mormon, I grant you that they have a Book of Mormon slant. I would strongly deny that to do so requires ignoring vast amounts of data that secular writers have discovered. Could you please explain how Dr. Clark is able to ignore those vast amounts of data, much of which he has helped to establish?

Dr. Clark is able to ignore vast amounts of data by

1. Assuming the setting, events, cultures, places, and people described in the Book of Mormon are all accurately described, true, and historical fact.

2. Carefully keeping secular and religious interests separated. Has Dr. Clark has ever published a professional paper in a scholarly secular periodical or submitted same to a secular conference that correlated results from field archeology to his belief in the Book of Mormon? His paper linked here is all conclusion and no data - or data used to promote a religious belief. For example, mesoamericans used wooden swords so the Book of Mormon is dead-on when it states that swords were stained with blood. But what about the fact that the Book of Mormon talks about steel swords (Clark even includes a picture of a steel sword laying among all the hundreds of records in the hill Cumorah)? What archeological evidence supports a mesoamerican industry capable of making steel? Does Dr. Clark even believe one existed?

3. Repeat 1 and 2.

The History Channel ran a program last night - perhaps a repeat - on Palenque. Gret stuff. As more and more is uncovered in mesoamerica - physically and academically - the challenge for LDS will be to keep pace with explanations of where exactly the Book of Mormon setting, events, etc. fit into the mesoamerican context. Stating that Book of Mormon cities have been located and Book of Mormon artifacts are in the museums of the world plays well in faith-promoting publications but it won't even get you to the pastry table at a serious conference.

With the forthcoming Apocalypto, I hope scholars like Dr. Clark will take the opportunity to roadmap for us gentiles how Book of Mormon religion, industry, events, culture, and people would have fit into the mesoamerican world presented on the big screen. Or better yet, tell us how Mel Gibson gets it all wrong.

[charity]

Oh, my goodness! I have read Gervin's last paragraph over and over, and I cannot keep from laughing. Yes, let's be sure all the scholars get in line with the great Dr. Gibson so that we can reconsile what he puts in his movies with the archeological data.

And prove how Mel Gibson "gets it wrong?" First, has he been peer reviewed in professional journals?

This is such a laugh. Thanks, gervin, for getting my day off on such a note of hilarity.

[Merry]

What would Nephite ruins look like? Fascinating subject. Not Oz, even more desolate than Kansas, I would think.

[charity]

Merry, hello. More desolate than Kansas? Last time I looked, meso-America is more like jungles.

[Brant Gardner]

Dr. Clark is able to ignore vast amounts of data by

1. Assuming the setting, events, cultures, places, and people described in the Book of Mormon are all accurately described, true, and historical fact.

That is an interesting opinion. I assume you came to it by ignoring vast amounts of data to the contrary. On the top of which, even as a hypothesis, beginning with a question to be answered does not require the invalidation of data. In fact, I happen to know that Dr. Clark is both familiar with and has considered the very vast amount of data you suggest he has ignored. How much of it have you read?

2. Carefully keeping secular and religious interests separated. Has Dr. Clark has ever published a professional paper in a scholarly secular periodical or submitted same to a secular conference that correlated results from field archeology to his belief in the Book of Mormon?

This is a subvariant of the silly peer-review question. Please tell me where in the publication guidelines of any of the venues in which Dr. Clark regularly publishes secular work that they accept (let alone encourage) pieces that specifically promote a particular religion? If you can find one that would allow such a publication, I'll pass it on.

Just one. Until then, I suggest you retire this particularly silly point.

For example, mesoamericans used wooden swords so the Book of Mormon is dead-on when it states that swords were stained with blood. But what about the fact that the Book of Mormon talks about steel swords.

You are talking here about issues of reading the text. Dr. Clark was speaking to a different audience and wasn't addressing that issue. Are you ready to? What is your background in dealing with translation literature, so we can lay the proper foundation for the discussion?

The History Channel ran a program last night - perhaps a repeat - on Palenque.

I have seen it. Nicely done and appropriately superficial for a non-professional audience.

Gret stuff. As more and more is uncovered in mesoamerica - physically and academically - the challenge for LDS will be to keep pace with explanations of where exactly the Book of Mormon setting, events, etc. fit into the mesoamerican context.

How do you get to this conclusion from your statement about Palenque? I can't see a connection at all. I have no idea what you are talking about, and I am familiar with much more than just Palenque.

Stating that Book of Mormon cities have been located and Book of Mormon artifacts are in the museums of the world plays well in faith-promoting publications but it won't even get you to the pastry table at a serious conference.

This statement tells me that you have no clue what Dr. Clark actually said. He was making the point that it is often difficult from the artifacts alone to determine ethnicity. Do you seriously doubt that statement? I am quite familiar with secular archaeologists who would agree wholeheartedly with him - which belies your blatantly unsupportable assertion that "it won't even get you to the pastry table." That is fine yellow verbiage, but it is completely false. You are exposing your ignorance.

With the forthcoming Apocalypto,

Let's see. Dr. Clark speculating on history cannot be correct. Mel Gibson speculating on history is a model for our understanding. Got it. Now I understand the rest of your post.

[fox_goku]

I am a believer in the Book of Mormon, but I will NOT believe in any so-called Book of Mormon archeology until that scholarship goes through the same rigors of peer review that any other form of archeology would go through.

This means to me that non-LDS scholars ought to be able to recognize the data as being plausibly connected to the descriptions in the Book of Mormon.

I do NOT buy into the argument that non-LDS scholars are unfair. I have dealt with such scholars for over 30 years, and I fully believe that they would be fair, even excited to see firm correlations between empirical data and the BofM.

So-called BofM archeologists or historians ought to be able to present their results at mainstream conferences (which often hear controversial results).

Until this standard scientific practice happens, I find all so-called BofM archeologies & histories to be uncompelling.

Having said that, I find the BofM itself to be compelling scripture. I just don't find science in it.

[thesometimesaint]

fox_goku:

How could you get a non- LDS archaeologist to state that while he disbelieves the Book of Mormon it is consistant with a real people?

[charity]

fox, do you really think that non-LDS scholars can accept any correlation of archeological sites with Book of Mormon events? When Schleimann began his search, he was looking for a place that may have only been accepted as a myth, but had no supernatural events associated with the historic nature. With the Book of Mormon, any non-LDS scholar who seriously considers Book of Mormon correlations with meso-Americna archeology would have to admit, at the very least, the possibility of angelic presence and the power of God.

He/she would also have to expend considerable time studying the Book of Mormon. Then appear at a conference of fellow scholars and admit he had taken the Book of Mormon seriously enough to devote all that time?

[urroner]

fox, do you really think that non-LDS scholars can accept any correlation of archeological sites with Book of Mormon events? When Schleimann began his search, he was looking for a place that may have only been accepted as a myth, but had no supernatural events associated with the historic nature. With the Book of Mormon, any non-LDS scholar who seriously considers Book of Mormon correlations with meso-Americna archeology would have to admit, at the very least, the possibility of angelic presence and the power of God.

He/she would also have to expend considerable time studying the Book of Mormon. Then appear at a conference of fellow scholars and admit he had taken the Book of Mormon seriously enough to devote all that time?

Well, with all the limitations the EVers are putting on BofM archeology, I'm sure that there should be many, many, many EV scholars would be more than willing to do so.

[TAK]

Brandt:

Critics may complain that Mesoamerica doesn't look like the Book of Mormon. That is simply the wrong perspective. It is based on modern ungrounded assumptions applied to a context the critic doesn't handle.

From that we I suppose we can infer that Mormon apologetics must dilute BofM text from a literal read to the something much less if it is to find a geographic fit?

Brandt:

Dr. Clark is undoubtedly correct that we have found cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The problem is finding ways to identify them as Nephite rather than some other ethnic description. at this point, there is nothing that tells us what physical remain is diagnostically Nephite rather than just part of the overall culture area.

Ironically his quote appears to undercut what others have contended that BYU â?? NWAF mission is not orientated to proving the historicity of the BofM. I read with mild interest Dr. Petersonâ??s rambling effort:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=532

Referencing a quote from above:

No statement respecting the landing places of these groups or the identification of any of the lands settled and cities established by them has ever been officially made by the Church. Nevertheless, some individual Mormons have made speculative deductions attempting to identify ethnic groups, archeological ruins, and geographical features of the New World with those described in the Book of Mormon. None of these interpretations to date has received either ecclesiastical or scientific approval. - J. Alden Mason, foreword of Research in Chiapas, Mexico, Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 1â??4, ed. J. Alden Mason (Orinda, CA: NWAF, 1959), iii.

From what I can tell that statement is as true today as it was nearly 50 years ago..

[thesometimesaint]

TAK:

The Church has never taken an Official postion on Biblical archaeology either.

[cdowis]

>I do NOT buy into the argument that non-LDS scholars are unfair.

I don't think anyone on this forum has presented such an argument.

[Jaybear]

fox_goku:

How could you get a non- LDS archaeologist to state that while he disbelieves the Book of Mormon it is consistant with a real people?

The LDS scholars are (deliberately?) approaching this issue wrong, if they want to attract attention of nonLDS scholars.

Instead of looking for evidence of "nephite"archeology based on textual assumptions, I would suggest that they marshall all evidence which supports a theory of a hebrew migration to the new world, circa 600 bc. That evidence would comprise any and all footprints that are traceable to the introduction of old world, ie, animals, culture, technology, genetics, plants, diseases, language, food production, crops, mettalurgy, etc. in the relevant time frame.

While we may not know what Nephite culture looks like, we do know what old world culture looked like circa 600 bc. We know thier language. We know the relied heavily on olives, and grapes. We know they knew how to leaven bread, fermet wine and beer, and sheer wool.

How much evidence would it take to be able to present such a theory, without coming across as a religious crackpot. I suspect not much. After all there is enough evidence to support a theory of a human migration out of Africa over 200,000 years ago.

[TAK]

TAK:

The Church has never taken an Official postion on Biblical archaeology either.

That may be a wise move on their part..

[antishock8]

Since you are so clearly conversant on Mesoamerican archaeology, please tell me the answers to the following:

What did the people in Izapa call themselves. What ethnicity were they? What language did they speak?

What did the people in Teotihuacan call themselves. What ethnicity were they? What language did they speak?

What was the real name of the people who have been called Olmec? What was their ethnicity. There is a guess as to what their language was. Do you know how that was guessed?

All of those are some pretty important cultures from the time of parts of the Book of Mormon. Please tell me why you think that we know so much when we don't know the answers to the above?

Then you should be able to tell me why you think they are so peculiar and that they had such a different spoken language. While you are at it, please explain your theories about the absence of unique material culture for the Hebrew entrance into Canaan.

It seems a little brash for me that you would opine so heavily on topics with which your clearly unacquainted. I see no indication that you have any real understanding of either archaeology of the issues involved in comparing archaeology to texts.

Taking your approach to any subject no one could ever understand sufficiently or make relevant commentaries on anything outside their particular field of expertise. I find this kind of dismissal arrogant and disrespectful not to just me, but everyone on this board reference the subject matter.

Luckily for myself or anyone who cares enough to do some research, the Internet can be a great tool to become familiar with most kinds of information presented. That being said, one doesn't have to be a doctoral candidate to assess information provided and draw conclusions that are grounded in common sense.

What I can tell you from any Mesoamerican culture is that they do not have a linguistic basis in Hebrew, nor do their writings have any connection to Egyptian and/or Hebrew. Their architecture is strikingly absent of any Judeo/Christian markings. There's nothing that I can see from reading many many articles that link those civilizations to a Judeo/Christian civilization in any form... from mythology to masonry. Nothing. So I think it's pretty apparent that you're grasping at straws by linking this particular civilization with Book of Mormon civilizations. Are there any others? Perhaps in South America somewhere that can be readily identified as Book of Mormon in nature?

[Dale]

I myself don't have the concrete information to know what places in Meso-America were called in Book of Mormon times. I don't know what they all believed. I know idol worship was present. I know a lot of general things, but what has been found is not as specific as we find in the Book of Mormon.

With Book of Mormon animals what if Joseph Smith was allowed to call strange animals by modern terms? I am open to the idea that perhaps like some call an elk a red deer that Book of Mormon authors did the same. The one objection I read was that something else was added to the name like in this case red to clarify the animal was not a deer. But is it neccessarily a bad translation to translate red deer as deer?

[Gervin]

Gervin:

Dr. Clark is able to ignore vast amounts of data by

1. Assuming the setting, events, cultures, places, and people described in the Book of Mormon are all accurately described, true, and historical fact.

Brant:

That is an interesting opinion. I assume you came to it by ignoring vast amounts of data to the contrary.

If you believe or know that Dr. Clark doesnâ??t believe the Book of Mormon is true then please tell us. My belief wasnâ??t part of your question.

QUOTE

Gervin: 2. Carefully keeping secular and religious interests separated. Has Dr. Clark has ever published a professional paper in a scholarly secular periodical or submitted same to a secular conference that correlated results from field archeology to his belief in the Book of Mormon?

Brant: This is a subvariant of the silly peer-review question. Please tell me where in the publication guidelines of any of the venues in which Dr. Clark regularly publishes secular work that they accept (let alone encourage) pieces that specifically promote a particular religion?

You assume that Dr. Clarkâ??s belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon precludes him from submitting a secular paper or using the Book of Mormon as a reference. I know of no such restriction by any secular organization or scholarly institution. If you know of one, please share. Recent digs at Petra have revealed very active iron ore mining operations. The research papers coming from the digs reference Biblical scripture associating iron products with this region. No statements about belief or religion, no position or stance on the Bible - just the use of it as a reference. Give me a break; no one stops a paper from being published because it uses the Bible as a historical reference. No one stops Dr. Clark from using the Book of Mormon as a reference in his papers or publications if he really believes that it is a source of accurate historical writings. He chooses not to and for very good reasons.

If you can find one that would allow such a publication, I'll pass it on.

Letâ??s assume that periodicals and universities do not discriminate against someone submitting a paper or conference talk that includes cultural, material, or event-ful references from the Book of Mormon. If you know differently, please inform.

Just one. Until then, I suggest you retire this particularly silly point.

Youâ??ve created a straw man. Iâ??ve never said that Dr. Clark â?? or anyone should promote a religion through archeological credibility. Read Biblical Archeology Review publications if you want to see how professionals use the Bible to inform their research and writing â?? some of it positively and some of it negatively â?? without promoting a particular belief system.

QUOTE

Gervin: For example, mesoamericans used wooden swords so the Book of Mormon is dead-on when it states that swords were stained with blood. But what about the fact that the Book of Mormon talks about steel swords.

Brant: You are talking here about issues of reading the text. Dr. Clark was speaking to a different audience and wasn't addressing that issue. Are you ready to? What is your background in dealing with translation literature, so we can lay the proper foundation for the discussion?

Youâ??ve made my point. Itâ??s obvious that Dr. Clark is writing to a different audience â?? one that needs a faith-promoting message. My background has nothing to do with Dr. Clarkâ??s lack of treatment of steel swords in the Book of Mormon.

Gervin: The History Channel ran a program last night - perhaps a repeat - on Palenque.

Brant: I have seen it. Nicely done and appropriately superficial for a non-professional audience.

I have some working knowledge of the History Channel and their writers as I am working on a program with them now. They write and present programs in a way that can be understood by a wide audience. They research in a most non-superficial way using the best professionals in the field they can find. Your statement sounds dismissive.

QUOTE

Gervin: Great stuff. As more and more is uncovered in mesoamerica - physically and academically - the challenge for LDS will be to keep pace with explanations of where exactly the Book of Mormon setting, events, etc. fit into the mesoamerican context.

Brant: How do you get to this conclusion from your statement about Palenque? I can't see a connection at all. I have no idea what you are talking about, and I am familiar with much more than just Palenque.

Can Dr. Clark take the information we have about Palenque and provide a Book of Mormon context related to an event, a material culture description, a religious belief or practice, or a city (he actually claims he can â?? he just seems to be withholding the details on which cities)?

QUOTE

Gervin: Stating that Book of Mormon cities have been located and Book of Mormon artifacts are in the museums of the world plays well in faith-promoting publications but it won't even get you to the pastry table at a serious conference.

Brant: This statement tells me that you have no clue what Dr. Clark actually said. He was making the point that it is often difficult from the artifacts alone to determine ethnicity. Do you seriously doubt that statement? I am quite familiar with secular archaeologists who would agree wholeheartedly with him - which belies your blatantly unsupportable assertion that "it won't even get you to the pastry table." That is fine yellow verbiage, but it is completely false. You are exposing your ignorance.

Then enlighten and back up your statement: who are the secular archaeologists that agree wholeheartedly that Book of Mormon cities have been found and that Book of Mormon artifacts currently reside in the museums of the world? I donâ??t think Dr. Clark was stating that it â??is often difficult from the artifacts alone to determine ethnicityâ? â?? I believe he is saying that he has no clue whether or not Mesoamerican artifacts can be related to Book of Mormon so he is going to assume that they can. And the proof of this position lies, probably, in his lack of interest in expressing this position in an environment where he would receive an academic or scholarly critique. If I am wrong then I will be glad to apologize for the statement if youâ??ll provide a publication or conference paper reference.

Let's see. Dr. Clark speculating on history cannot be correct. Mel Gibson speculating on history is a model for our understanding. Got it. Now I understand the rest of your post.

The entertainment our culture demands, or is at least provided, is often fodder for good discussion. When a movie has a historical component or tries to represent a historic culture, event, or people â?? see Flags of Fathers, Schindlerâ??s List, Fahrenheit 911, Saving Private Ryan, Passion of the Christ, The Queen, Birth of a Nation, Super Size Me, Dances With Wolves, etc., for examples â?? then there is an opportunity to scrutinize, discuss, critique, and analyze. This exercise is especially interesting with movies because you have people from disparate backgrounds and experiences all riffing off and reacting to the same thing.

Dr. Clark believes that archeological evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon can be found in the â??Arts of War.â? He says that a â??precise correspondence is the practice of fleeing to the summits of pyramids as places of last defense and, consequently, of eventual surrender. Other practices of [Mormonâ??s] day were human sacrifice and cannibalism, (sic) vile behaviors well attested for Mesoamerica (see Mormon 4:4; Mormoni 9:8, and 10).â?

I would imagine that Mel Gibsonâ??s movie is going to attempt to depict some of these warfare practices as described in the Book of Mormon. Is it crazy to assume that someone like Dr. Clark might be interested in seeing the dramatization of a â??precise correspondenceâ? from the Book of Mormon?

Dr. Clark says that, â??the practices and instruments of war described in the Book of Mormon display multiple and precise correspondences with mesoamerican practices â?¦â? Will Mel faithfully represent the Mesoamerican and Book of Mormon practices and instruments of war? Iâ??m curious. If the Mayan donâ??t have steel swords will there be an outcry from scholars?

[Tchild2]

That's like a thousand years from now saying, "What would Mormon ruins look like?"

"Something that isn't American."

Lemme ask you a question. I drive a Jeep Wrangler. Is that gonna be an indicator of my religion if it gets dug up a thousand years from now? Are they gonna say, "See?!? We knew there were Mormons!!" Many artifacts are not exclusive to specific sub-cultures, especially dwelling places.

Makelan - Your analogy doesn't apply. The BoM peoples had a completely different culture and religion. It would be more akin to looking for "Mormon ruins" in a Muslim or Hindu culture. Secondly, the BoM doesn't define itself in relation to its supposed neighbors, apologists do. Where in the BoM does it mention or define its "subset" status? From the readers perspective, there is no such distinction made. All that is ever mentioned are "others". Those others are made to be seen as offshoots from the Nephite/Lamanites, and not necessarily from indigenious cultures already established in the area.

Which brings us to one of the major premises of the BoM; bringing the Lord's chosen to the promised land.

2 Ne. 1: 3, 5, 9-10, 24

3 And he also spake unto them concerning the land of promise, which they had obtainedâ??how merciful the Lord had been in warning us that we should flee out of the land of Jerusalem.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lordâ??having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promiseâ??behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.

How does being a minor subset of other larger and stronger paganistic cultures fufill these scriptures Makelan? In fact, current apologist assumptions and hypothesis about the BoM peoples directly contradicts these very promises.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

Depends on what 21st Century preconceptions you bring to the table. Try looking at it through the eyes of someone three thousand years ago.

[cdowis]

>The BoM peoples had a completely different culture and religion. It would be more akin to looking for "Mormon ruins" in a Muslim or Hindu culture.

Folks, here is another antimormon who has never read the Book of Mormon. He spouts off his expertise. Let's take a look.

Tell us about bom religion. What artifacts do you expect to find? A crucifix, a picture of Mary? Were you aware that the BOM says that there were **many religions**, not just Christianity. Indeed, at several times the ****Christians were in the extreme minority****.

We read in the BOM about towers used in religious worship, we read about human sacrifice. Are these "different" from mesoamerican culture?

Please tell us about BOM culture -- did they have writted records, a calendar, etc. Specifically how were they were "completely different"?

Making assertions is easy, but proving them is a real b****.

Especially if you are totally ignorant of the subject.