Book Of Mormon Archeology

[John Williams]

One of my favorite apologetic straw men is the idea that we nonbelievers think that "all the discovering has been done" in the area of Mesoamerican archeology. A corollary is the idea that even if a sign were discovered reading "Zarahemla City Limits" we would not believe.

This straw man appears to assume that archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon will eventually be discovered, and we critics will end up looking rather sheepish. But if such evidence is forthcoming (at least at some point), who will discover it? Are there any concerted efforts, LDS or otherwise, toward discovering Book of Mormon sites and evidence?

A generation ago, people like Thomas Ferguson led digs in Central America in hopes of finding evidence of the Nephite/Lamanite/Jaredite/Mulekite civilizations. But in recent years, the emphasis seems to have shifted away from finding the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica in favor of finding Mesoamerica in the text of the Book of Mormon. But is anyone still doing the former type of archeological work? If so, what might they expect to find?

[Uncle Dale]

...

what might they expect to find?

I'll tell you what WILL be found -- and that is, ever more information on the evolution of native

American cultures of the pre-Columbian era.

We will learn more and more where they lived, how they lived, and how they all interacted with

one another. We will learn more about how maize-growing spread throughout the Americas, and

how pottery and weaving were spread from NE Asia into the Americas.

We will learn how some of the very first urban cultures developed along the western coast of South

America, and we will learn more about ancient records, writing, technology, etc.

Many gaps will be filled in. But with each gap in our knowledge, thus eliminated, there will be fewer

and fewer prehistorical "places" in which to locate Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites and Lamanites.

If we today go back and read the 1880s "Deseret News" pronouncements, made by such LDS apostles

as Orson Pratt, even the most dyed-in-the-wool Mormon defender will be forced to admit that the

continent-wide picture of Christian "Nephite" civilization painted in those old articles was wrong.

That is the first unsettling but necessary step that Mormons must take ---- to admit that what our

ancestors had to say about BoM peoples was WRONG.

.... Then, the descendants of today's modern Mormons, can one day admit that even the current

"limited geography" notions were wrong -- way back in 2007.

It will take a while, but the day will come when the Mormons will quietly adopt the Community of Christ

viewpoint --- that there will NEVER be any Nephite archaeology -- because there never were any Nephites.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Are there any concerted efforts, LDS or otherwise, toward discovering Book of Mormon sites and evidence?

Not to my knowledge.

As one of my very devout archaeologist colleagues put it, if, in the course of his thoroughly mainstream excavation program in Mesoamerica, he happened to find a stela inscribed with "I Nephi, son of Lehi, was here," he would be strongly inclined to cover it up so that one of his non-LDS peers could find it, instead.

But have there ever really been any serious LDS archaeological efforts in Mesoamerica focused on specifically Book of Mormon issues?

I don't believe so.

A generation ago, people like Thomas Ferguson led digs in Central America in hopes of finding evidence of the Nephite/Lamanite/Jaredite/Mulekite civilizations.

Could you perhaps supply some information on these alleged digs? And on the alleged role of Thomas Stuart Ferguson, a lawyer and fundraiser, in "leading" them?

I've outlined the story as I understand it in an essay "On the New World Archaeological Foundation," with some additional material in an adjoining article that I wrote with Matthew Roper ("Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons"), both of which appear in FARMS Review 16/1 (2004):

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...16&number=1

But is anyone still doing the former type of archeological work? If so, what might they expect to find?

I'm not sure that anybody ever was "doing the former type of archeological work."

Incidentally, I want to thank UD for his moving testimonial of his faith.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Incidentally, I want to thank UD for his moving testimonial of his faith.

We seem to be reading from the same page here, Doc.

If we live and spread our Master's Gospel, there is really no need to spend our time on BoM archaeology.

Your Uncle Dale

[Daniel Peterson]

If we live and spread our Master's Gospel, there is really no need to spend our time on BoM archaeology.

Only in the same sense that there's really no need to study astronomy or Greek or chemistry or accounting or English literature or Roman history or geophysics or scriptural exegesis.

[John Williams]

Could you perhaps supply some information on these alleged digs? And on the alleged role of Thomas Stuart Ferguson, a lawyer and fundraiser, in "leading" them?

I clearly misspoke. Thanks for the article. Very illuminating. My question was sincere: is anyone doing any archeological research toward finding Book of Mormon evidence? The answer is apparently not.

Incidentally, I want to thank UD for his moving testimonial of his faith.

I have nothing but respect for Uncle Dale. He may well be right in this matter.

[Uncle Dale]

Only in the same sense that there's really no need to study astronomy or Greek or chemistry

or accounting or English literature or Roman history or geophysics or scriptural exegesis.

Together we could burn down that heathen Library at Alexanderia, Doc!

Think of it -- no book on earth except for that of Chairman Mao!

Uncle "or was it the Koran? I always get those two volumes mixed up in my mind" Dale

[Hashbaz]

I admit that much of what our ancestors said about the Book of Mormon is wrong. But the day will not come that we disavow the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Why is it that those on this board who have actually received formal academic training in Mesoamerican archaeology are those who are the most dedicated to Book of Mormon historicity? I know many LDS Mesoamericanists with PhDs from the best Meso programs in the country (Yale, UT Austin, UC Riverside). Few of them are public about their Morminism because they fear being labeled crackpots. Yet with all their training and all their understanding, they recongnize the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And it's not just those who are 'brainwashed' from their youths. Alejandro Sarabia, the site director of Teotihuacan - the largest archaeological zone in the Americas - and his wife Kim Goldsmith, who got her PhD in Mesoamerican archaeology with a focus on Teotihuacan and has been doing research and living there for 20 years, both joined the Church long after they recieved their degrees (happily, they just got sealed this past March).

While Uncle Dale sees new discoveries as damning evidence against the Book of Mormon, I see each new discovery as filling in the blanks and painting a richer picture of Book of Mormon peoples and cultures.

As for the OP, Book of Mormon archaeology is being done by anyone who digs up a Preclassic site. Whether they consider it Book of Mormon archaeology or not is besides the point.

For example, the murals found (accidentally) a few years ago by William Saturno date to the Preclassic, about 100 BC. They are continuing to excavate and trying to piece together the murals, which were broken down anciently. Non-LDS archaeologists interpret the iconography found within the walls of this sacred temple as dealing with issues of creation and leaving paradise, offering sacrifice, and ultimately enthronement. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon (and especially those who have never been to the temple) would likely miss the obvious connections. Without divulging anything inappropriate, I will merely state that our own temple rites deal with issues of creation, sacrifice, and ultimately enthronement. What is happening in the Book of Mormon at around this time? We have King Benjamin, at the temple, teaching his people about Adam (Mosiah 3:11-26), his people are offering burnt sacrifice (Mosiah 2:3), and become adopted/reborn children of Christ (Mosiah 5:7) (Mesoamerican rulers linked their genealogy back to gods to legitimize their authority), which adoption/rebirth leads to inheritance of the kingdom of God (Mosiah 27:25-26) - an heir to a throne, as it were. And to top it all off, the king being enthroned at San Bartolo is sitting on a temporary wooden scaffold, which reminds me of Benjamin's quickly built tower, from which he announced the enthronement of his son Mosiah II.

You see where I'm going with this? I'm not saying the San Bartolo murals depict King Benjamin. But I'm saying at the time the Book of Mormon states there was a king on a tower at a temple talking about creation, sacrifice, and enthronement, we have a mural in Mesoamerica depicting the same thing. I'm saying the Book of Mormon fits in Mesoamerica, in a way it doesnt' fit anywhere else. And those Latter-day Saints who know Mesoamerica the best, through academic training and professional experience, are those who are most committed to its historicity.

[USU78]

Together we could burn down that heathen Library at Alexanderia, Doc!

Think of it -- no book on earth except for that of Chairman Mao!

Uncle "or was it the Koran? I always get those two volumes mixed up in my mind" Dale

Giddyup a oom papa oom papa mao mao!

Giddyup a oom papa oom papa mao mao!

Hi Yo Silver Away!

USU "Or was that Mau Mau?" 78

[LifeOnaPlate]

USU "Or was that Mau Mau?" 78

My heart is on fire.

[Uncle Dale]

Giddyup a oom papa oom papa mao mao!

Giddyup a oom papa oom papa mao mao!

Hi Yo Silver Away!

You're hijacking the thread, Senator Craig -- and by the way, where is Senator Lott?

Getting back to the subject matter at hand, just as we today admit our ancestors were

wrong about the BoM peoples, so will LDS descendants one day admit much the same about

today's revisionist (but still faith-promoting) speculations.

In Mormonism, about two and a half generations must die off, before new precepts

can emerge. The religion simply cannot absorb too many "change it now" SWK revelations.

Not our "father's religion," sorry to say.

Uncle "and Brent Ashcroft no longer sings bass, either -- too bad about that" Dale

[Hashbaz]

just as we today admit our ancestors were wrong about the BoM peoples, so will LDS descendants one day admit much the same about today's revisionist (but still faith-promoting) speculations

Not all of our ancestors were wrong. Since Joseph himself placed the events in Mesoamerica, today's "speculations" might be better termed "restorationist" than "revisionist".

[Uncle Dale]

Not all of our ancestors were wrong. Since Joseph himself placed the events in Mesoamerica, today's "speculations" might be better termed "restorationist" than "revisionist".

What did he have to say about the Nephites and Lamanites covering the land from the east coast

to the Rocky Mountains?

Seems to me that he dug up Zelph in North America and discovered a Nephite tower in Daviess Co.,

Missouri.

Old Jo. may have been wrong himself, a time or two.

UD

[Severian]

It will take a while, but the day will come when the Mormons will quietly adopt the Community of Christ viewpoint --- that there will NEVER be any Nephite archaeology -- because there never were any Nephites.

UD

Oh yeah? Well how do you explain Zelph and his book?

So has viewing the Nephite saga as allegory, helped the CoC to become more Christ oriented?

[Hashbaz]

Old Jo. may have been wrong himself, a time or two.

Fair enough. But Brother Joseph may have been right a time or two as well.

[Uncle Dale]

Fair enough. But Brother Joseph may have been right a time or two as well.

That's what keeps me from going to Ed Decker's birthday parties, I suppose.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Oh yeah? Well how do you explain Zelph and his book?

An obvious scribal error --- no wonder those murmuring Zioneers caught cholera and died at Liberty!

So has viewing the Nephite saga as allegory, helped the CoC to become more Christ oriented?

Well, their allowing diverse opinions on the subject is an interesting development. What would Jesus

have said about diverse opinions over whether or not Joshua made the sun stand still in the sky?

Probably he would have said something along the lines of "man not being made for the scriptures,"

or some such thing.

As a dissenter from CoC, I tend to find myself among the BoM literalists of the fundamental RLDS.

They are a little less tolerant of diverse BoM opinions than are our CoC cousins. Oy vey!

UD

[cdowis]

What did he have to say about the Nephites and Lamanites covering the land from the east coast

to the Rocky Mountains?

Seems to me that he dug up Zelph in North America and discovered a Nephite tower in Daviess Co.,

Missouri.

Old Jo. may have been wrong himself, a time or two.

UD

What are you babbling about?

The BOM talks about the land northward. It is a fallacy to believe that the Limited geography theory excludes North America. Whilst the BOM **text** confines itself to mesoamerica, it states that the land northward was fully inhabited.

It is old Dale who is mistaken, not the prophet Joseph Smith.

Finally, I cannot see the LDS church calling Joseph Smith a liar and deceiver. Denying the angelic visits, the witnesses to the plates and visions affirming the truth of the Book of Mormon. I do not see us denying the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith, and becoming just another Protestant church.

[Uncle Dale]

What are you babbling about? The BOM talks about the land northward. It is a fallacy to believe that the Limited geography theory excludes North America. The BOM confines itself to mesoamerica, but they inhabited North and South America.

It is old Dale who is wrong, not the prophet Joseph Smith.

Well, we agree on every thing except the part about my being wrong, Charlie.

Then again, I may be wrong about that too, eh?

UD

[cdowis]

Well, we agree on every thing except the part about my being wrong, Charlie.

Well, you are wrong on that. Otherwise, we agree.

[Uncle Dale]

Well, you are wrong on that. Otherwise, we agree.

Actually, I was not arguing against your interpretation of the "Land Northward" being in North America.

There are some Mormons, however, who place the "Land Northward" at about the latitude of Tampico,

in Mexico. Were this the case, the BoM's description of great ocean voyages to reach the northern

territory would not make much sense.

But -- don't take my word for it. Do an internet seach on the limited geography model and land northward,

to see what some LDS are teaching as ancient Nephite history nowadays.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, Hashbaz, for your substantive and well-informed posts here.

[Dale]

Book of Mormon archeology seem's impossible to do at this point. If we could uncover a map dating to Book of Mormon times we would have place name's to compare with those in the book. If we could find some Meso-American texts with histories dating to Book of Mormon time's that would be helpful.

At this point the case against historicity i have read is coming out of Signature Books, and Zondervan. But i don't see any new and exciting discoveries against the book. The DNA fiasco of Tom Murphy was something new to me. But the popular case against historicity doesn't include any new information as far as i can tell. The point's made against historicity seem to be just an larger elaboration on the old Smithsonian statements points.

[Uncle Dale]

Book of Mormon archeology seem's impossible to do at this point. If we could uncover a map dating to Book of Mormon times we would have place name's to compare with those in the book. If we could find some Meso-American texts with histories dating to Book of Mormon time's that would be helpful.

At this point the case against historicity i have read is coming out of Signature Books, and Zondervan. But i don't see any new and exciting discoveries against the book. The DNA fiasco of Tom Murphy was something new to me. But the popular case against historicity doesn't include any new information as far as i can tell. The point's made against historicity seem to be just an larger elaboration on the old Smithsonian statements points.

The situation is -- that there is no evidence in the Americas of a Nephite civilization -- period.

Suppose somebody were to ask for evidence of the Aztec culture -- or the Navajo culture -- or even

the obscure Indians of the Amazon rain forest. Such evidence is possible to discover and possible to

present in peer-reviewed archaeological/anthropological professional reporting.

Going back into pre-Columbian history, evidence for hundreds of Indian cultures (even civilizations)

is likewise forthcoming. We can trace the development and spread of their pottery, their weaving,

their agriculture, their projectile points design and manufacture.

Into that vast amount of pre-Columbian cultural re-construction, the Mormons demand that we fit in

their Jaredites, Mulekites, Nephites, and Lamanites. But they provide us with no information, as to

how we are to differentiate a Jaredite from a Clovis hunter; a Mulekite from an Apache; a Nephite

from a Mohawk; a Lamanite from an Eskimo.

Until the Mormons can tell the paleoanthroplogists what the unique staple crops, the pottery, tool-kits,

domesticated animals, written language, and artwork/architecture of these supposed ancient

Book of Mormon peoples were, there is no hope of finding them at all in any future archaeology.

And ------ I truly believe ------ even if the Mormons were to provide lists of such cultural identifiers,

the purported BoM peoples would still never be discovered through archaeology.

Because they never existed --- the logical answer today; and the logical answer a hundred years

from now (when they still will remain undiscovered and unverified).

It is time to put the Nephites up on the old-time fantasy shelf, along with with the elves and unicorns.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

The situation is -- that there is no evidence in the Americas of a Nephite civilization -- period.

You would be more accurate if you were to say that there is nothing in the Americas that we can definitely prove, at this point, to be "Nephite."

Suppose somebody were to ask for evidence of the Aztec culture -- or the Navajo culture -- or even

the obscure Indians of the Amazon rain forest. Such evidence is possible to discover and possible to

present in peer-reviewed archaeological/anthropological professional reporting.

In each and every one of those cases, live representatives of those cultures were present to greet the white man on his arrival. This is a notable archaeological advantage.

Going back into pre-Columbian history, evidence for hundreds of Indian cultures (even civilizations)

is likewise forthcoming. We can trace the development and spread of their pottery, their weaving,

their agriculture, their projectile points design and manufacture.

And we know that they're not related to Book of Mormon peoples . . . how, exactly?

We call the Olmecs by a modern name because we don't know what they called themselves. Your summary sketch misleads, by suggesting that we know virtually everything about those peoples when, in fact, there is much (and much that is important) about them that we don't know -- e.g., in more than a few cases, what they called themselves and what the names of their cities were.

Into that vast amount of pre-Columbian cultural re-construction, the Mormons demand that we fit in

their Jaredites, Mulekites, Nephites, and Lamanites.

You write as if we're trying to preserve some vast open area into which the peoples of the Book of Mormon might someday fit. That's not it at all. As John Clark has observed, we've almost certainly found artifacts from Book of Mormon peoples -- we just don't know it.

But they provide us with no information, as to

how we are to differentiate a Jaredite from a Clovis hunter; a Mulekite from an Apache; a Nephite

from a Mohawk; a Lamanite from an Eskimo.

Precisely. But the fact that we don't know, off hand, how to distinguish a Nephite shard from a non-Nephite shard doesn't prove that there were no Nephites. It's frightfully difficult, sometimes, to distinguish ancient Hebrew artifacts in Palestinian archaeology from ancient non-Hebrew artifacts.

Until the Mormons can tell the paleoanthroplogists what the unique staple crops, the pottery, tool-kits,

domesticated animals, written language, and artwork/architecture of these supposed ancient

Book of Mormon peoples were, there is no hope of finding them at all in any future archaeology.

True. Which says nothing, one way or the other, about whether those peoples existed.

And ------ I truly believe ------ even if the Mormons were to provide lists of such cultural identifiers,

the purported BoM peoples would still never be discovered through archaeology.

Because they never existed --- the logical answer today; and the logical answer a hundred years

from now (when they still will remain undiscovered and unverified).

It is time to put the Nephites up on the old-time fantasy shelf, along with with the elves and unicorns.

As I've said, it's always refreshing to read a forthright statement of somebody's faith.

Incidentally, I've been wondering, since you suggested the other day that "If we live and spread our Master's Gospel, there is really no need to spend our time on BoM archaeology," whether spending our time pooh-poohing Book of Mormon archaeology or seeking evidence to prop up the Spalding Theory is any more compatible with living and spreading the Master's gospel. And, if so, on what basis.