Book Of Mormon Archeology

[Uncle Dale]

....

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.

Good point, Doc.

When you're right, you tend to be very right.

As for Spalding -- I went searching in that dark corner, simply to shed more light.

How was I to know that such tedious study would turn me from a sceptic into a professor?

Some folks study the sex-life of Canadian bark beetles and some folks try and find a

cure for cancer. The latter is far more easy to justify than is the former --- but I'm open

to allowing a handful of bark beetle researchers to "do their thing."

As for Spalding-Rigdon researchers, I think that quorum is currently filled, with no need

to establish any new openings.

How's the weather along the Wasatch Front?

Uncle "Hilo was paradise, for day 3,642 in a row, of course -- no wonder Joseph F. Smith came here" Dale

[Severian]

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

UD

Are you trying to make a case to include the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion in the LDS canon?

[Uncle Dale]

Are you trying to make a case to include the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion

in the LDS canon?

Nope.

But "The Hunting of the Snark" might fit well into the last pages of the 2008 PGP.

UD

[Freedom]

You show me evidence that Daniel lived and I will show you evidence that Alma lived. You show me evidence that Moses parted the water and I will show you evidence that Jesus came to the Americas. Archeology produces pots and shoes, not events and names. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that many if any of the events recorded in the bible ever occured.

[John Williams]

You show me evidence that Daniel lived and I will show you evidence that Alma lived. You show me evidence that Moses parted the water and I will show you evidence that Jesus came to the Americas. Archeology produces pots and shoes, not events and names. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that many if any of the events recorded in the bible ever occured.

Do we need events and names to place the Nephites in the Americas? It seems to me that the Book of Mormon argues for specific cultural practices and technologies. Wouldn't those be evident even if names and events aren't? I'm not really sure of your point here.

[Uncle Dale]

Do we need events and names to place the Nephites in the Americas? It seems to me that the Book of Mormon argues for specific cultural practices and technologies. Wouldn't those be evident even if names and events aren't? I'm not really sure of your point here.

I'll let our friendly name-dropper speak for himself --- but we might take the example of David and

the Philistines for our consideration.

Somewhere along the line, David became a very important name in Israelite and Jewish heritage.

But the father back in preserved history we go, the less and less evidence there is for any sort of

King David. There is certainly nothing contemporary with his reign that has survived and which is

clearly identified with him as a person.

His Philistine masters/neighbors/enemies have, however, been brought into the light of modern

knowledge by decades of research in southern Palestine.

Some day, some digger of ancient refuse piles may well stumble upon a Philistine wine-jug seal

that says, "this jug is for David of Judah." Not very likely -- but possible.

Now, if Nephite archaeology were as well developed as Philistine archaeology, we might likewise

stumble upon a Helorum, or an Amulek, or some such nomenclature. Doc Peterson says that we

would not know a Nephite artifact, were we to find one. Probably true....

At first, the same thing might have been said of Philistine artifacts --- but eventually we figured out

what they were, and how they differed from Israelite or Canaanite stuff.

Will we ever reach THAT stage in Nephite identification --------> so we can begin to look for the

Helorums and Amuleks of ancient America?

I'd bet good $4.50 Brighamite 1857 five-dollar gold pieces to Orem doughnuts, that the answer is NO.

UD

[Freedom]

Do we need events and names to place the Nephites in the Americas? It seems to me that the Book of Mormon argues for specific cultural practices and technologies. Wouldn't those be evident even if names and events aren't? I'm not really sure of your point here.

Ok, can you list the cultural practices and technologies of the people of mezzo America in the year 300bc? To have cultural practices you need a written record. To my knowledge, none have been found. To know the technology you need to find a significant sampling. This does not exist. we know a fair bit of the people who existed centuries after the Nephites, but not much of anything of 2,000 years ago or earlier. With the Book of Mormon, we have a relatively modern day translation of an ancient text that may or may not have accurate descriptions what you refer to as technologies. Much of the technology people want us to find are the weapons of war because this is the only time specific items are mentioned. Although these wars are described in great detail, the reality is that they were few and far between in terms of the duration of the Nephite civilization. Archeology will uncover the everyday items. Those very rare items such as weapons of war will be much more difficult to find. In fact, those weapons of war would have been turned into workable every day tools during times of peace so they likely would not have survived. We know all about tanks and bombers today but if you were to dig up Rialto California in 3,000 years, I doubt you would find any.

[Freedom]

I'll let our friendly name-dropper speak for himself

I didn't see any name-dropping in my post

[Uncle Dale]

I didn't see any name-dropping in my post

Joke -- friend -- just my devilish play on words.

UD

[Freedom]

Joke -- friend -- just my devilish play on words.

my wife always has to explain things to me because I'm not a very clever fellow.

[Uncle Dale]

my wife always has to explain things to me because I'm not a very clever fellow.

Ah, give yourself a little credit.

You made some good points regarding the names, etc.

UD

[Hashbaz]

Do we need events and names to place the Nephites in the Americas? It seems to me that the Book of Mormon argues for specific cultural practices and technologies. Wouldn't those be evident even if names and events aren't?

Tell me which specific cultural practices you would like evidence for, and I'll be happy to place them into a Mesoamerican context for you.

[Uncle Dale]

Tell me which specific cultural practices you would like evidence for, and I'll be happy to place them into a Mesoamerican context for you.

Old World (Israelite) pottery might be a good start. Add to that Old World crop seeds (like wheat and

barley). By drilling down into the annual mud deposits in ancient lake beds, we can find the pollen of

maize and other New World crops. Tell us where to drill, to find the fossil pollen for plants introduced

into the Americas by BoM peoples.

Old World writing (Hebrew would be a good example) would also be a nice find. Tell us where to dig

with the best chance of finding the writings of BoM peoples.

But, all of that aside, I'd settle for a chariot linch-pin, or a torah scroll handle, or even a ceramic lamp.

UD

[Hashbaz]

Old World (Israelite) pottery might be a good start. Add to that Old World crop seeds (like wheat and

barley). By drilling down into the annual mud deposits in ancient lake beds, we can find the pollen of

maize and other New World crops. Tell us where to drill, to find the fossil pollen for plants introduced

into the Americas by BoM peoples.

Old World writing (Hebrew would be a good example) would also be a nice find. Tell us where to dig

with the best chance of finding the writings of BoM peoples.

But, all of that aside, I'd settle for a chariot linch-pin, or a torah scroll handle, or even a ceramic lamp.

UD

As for the crop seeds, I'd recommend Sorenson and Johannessen's recent chapter "Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages" from "Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World" (2006). In it they list more than eighty plant species for which there is decisive evidence of growth in both the Old and New Worlds before Columbus' first voyage. They also list sixty-four more for which there is less than conclusive evidence. You may not agree with their findings, but I know for a fact that the venerable Mayanist Michael Coe does (at least in private) (Appeal to authority. I know. Sorry).

As for the other things on your list, could you kindly provide references from the Book of Mormon that state they used Old World (Israelite) pottery, written Hebrew language, chariot linch-pins, torah scroll handles, or ceramic lamps? What I asked for were descriptions of cultural practices described in the Book of Mormon itself, rather than your preconceived notions of what it should contain.

[Uncle Dale]

As for the crop seeds, I'd recommend Sorenson and Johannessen's recent chapter "Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages" from "Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World" (2006). In it they list more than eighty plant species for which there is decisive evidence of growth in both the Old and New Worlds before Columbus' first voyage. They also list sixty-four more for which there is less than conclusive evidence. You may not agree with their findings, but I know for a fact that the venerable Mayanist Michael Coe does (at least in private) (Appeal to authority. I know. Sorry).

As for the other things on your list, could you kindly provide references from the Book of Mormon that state they used Old World (Israelite) pottery, written Hebrew language, chariot linch-pins, torah scroll handles, or ceramic lamps? What I asked for were descriptions of cultural practices described in the Book of Mormon itself, rather than your preconceived notions of what it should contain.

No need for me to do that.

If these purported Old World peoples came to the Americas and brought with them no artifacts

of their native culture(s) --- and reproduced no such objects once they were established in the

Americas, then I believe it is up to the Mormons to provide some evidence and reasons for that conclusion.

Is there any way to distinguish the remains of a Book of Mormon synogogue from a Hopi kiva or an

Iroquois sweat-lodge? If so, it is up to Mormons to tell us such things. AND IF NOT -- then our reason

for BoM archaeology is non-existant, in that it cannot be distinguished from non-BoM archaeology.

If Old World wheat and barley fossil pollen suddenly appear in buried sediments, and then spread

outwards from the initial introduction point(s) along a coast, thus documenting the spread of

Old World staple plant cultivation, then I do believe it is up to the Mormons to publish their findings

in reputable journals, where the other paleoanthropologists can review and discuss these findings.

The truth is, that you (nor any other Mormon) can point me to such findings, because they do

not exist. No doubt there were certain Old World food plants which grew in the Americas. Their

presence across an ocean can be explained in various ways, including transfer of seeds via wind

and bird droppings. But the presence of a few plants that grew in both hemispheres is not the same

thing as evidence of mass cultivation of identifiable strains of staple crops.

Wheat cultivation, rice cultivation, etc., involve major cultural adaptation. A wheat-growing culture has

a different set of domestic animals (at least draft animals) than does a hunter-gatherer society or a

maize-cultivating society. Dig up the remains of a wheat-growing people in the Old World and you will

spot these cultural identifiers rather quickly --- you will know what crop they grew year after year,

and (with a little extra investigation) you will discover which genetic strain(s) they thus grew.

You can conduct a search for fossil maize pollen in the Americas (along with searches for remains of

discarded, cultivated maize ears), and you can chart out the spread of maize cultivation across two

continents. You can also determine that the crop evolved from the selective growing of certain strains,

beginning in the Valley of Mexico.

So -- did Jaredites grow and eat corn? Did Jaredites arrive upon the mud-covered American continents,

where all human life was absent, following Noah's flood? Did Jaredites discover maize kernals in that

mud, and re-start maize cultivation in the Americas?

If so, then Mormons can make a huge contribution to the existing paeloanthropological literature by

publishing their discoveries along these lines, and sharing them with the other scientists of the world.

Or -- if Jaredites and other BoM peoples did NOT start up maize cultivation themselves, did they then

introduce wheat cultivation to the Americas? If the answer is YES, then, again, Mormon scientists bear

the burden of responsibility for sharing their discoveries along these lines with the rest of the world.

And, until you do THAT, do not expect people like myself to believe that archaeology has offered proof

of the BoM peoples. Because we will not believe you, on the basis of FARMS publication alone.

UD

.

[Hashbaz]

we will not believe you, on the basis of FARMS publication alone.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified. The book I referenced, "Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World," is published by your very own University of Hawaii Press, and Sorenson is the only Latter-day Saint author found within this edited volume (his co-author is not even LDS). Now will you believe?

But the presence of a few plants that grew in both hemispheres is not the same

thing as evidence of mass cultivation of identifiable strains of staple crops.

Eighty-plus decisive examples and limited evidence of sixty-five more qualifies as more than "a few".

If these purported Old World peoples came to the Americas and brought with them no artifacts

of their native culture(s) --- and reproduced no such objects once they were established in the

Americas, then I believe it is up to the Mormons to provide some evidence and reasons for that conclusion.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It's an anthropologially sound concept, and certainly not one that was invented by Mormon apologists.

Is there any way to distinguish the remains of a Book of Mormon synogogue from a Hopi kiva or an

Iroquois sweat-lodge? If so, it is up to Mormons to tell us such things. AND IF NOT -- then our reason

for BoM archaeology is non-existant, in that it cannot be distinguished from non-BoM archaeology.

Will archaeologists a thousand years from now be able to determine that the San Diego Temple and the Laie Temple served exactly the same function? Do they share any architectural features at all? I've been in both, and inside and out they are very, very different, yet the function and meaning is identical. With the exception of Ogden and Provo, do any two LDS temples look nearly identical? What did a Nephite temple or synagogue look like? We don't know - they don't tell us (other than the first one they built, which was after the "manner" of Solomon's temple, except for the fact that it was made with completely different materials - as was certainly the case with their ceramics, etc).

So we look for function and meaning, which we do know. If the function and meaning of a Hopi kiva, or an ancient Mesoamerican temple, resembles Book of Mormon temple rites, who cares what the architecture looks like? And the function of these temples was similar, as I've explained in an earlier post. And for the record, there is an astonishing variety in Maya temples as well. Each city displayed unique architecture - no one would mistake the temples at Tikal for those at Palenque, or either of those for the temples at Copan. Every ballcourt, every palace, and every courtyard showed unique local flair. Do we deny the people of Palenque are Maya because their architecture is distinct from Copan? The Nephites would have stood out if, and only if, they made carbon copies of the architecture of a certain site. To be a Mesoamerican city was to have your own identity, your own architecture, and your own gods. Interestingly, most major sites, such as Palenque, Naranjo, Tikal, Caracol, etc each had their own unique Triad of local gods. No two cities shared the same Triad. The Nephites likewise had their own triad; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They fit right in.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Now will you believe?

...

Eighty-plus decisive examples and limited evidence of sixty-five more qualifies as more than "a few".

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It's an anthropologially sound concept, and certainly not one that was invented by Mormon apologists.

...

No doubt such a book was published and contained the report of such a Mormon writer. I never

disputed that. Nor do I dispute the probability of trans-oceanic crossings by ancient mariners in

which food crops were introduced into the Americas. There was obviously some interchange of

sweet potatoes between the South American coast and Pacific Islands, for example. I believe

evidence has been discovered for preColumbian oats in Greenland. None of that troubles me.

Tell me what the Nephite culture was, in terms of food, domesticated animals, religion, etc. Until

you tell me that, there can be no archeaological discovery, no matter whether there were twenty

or two hundred food plants common to both hemispheres.

I presented you with a scientifically verifiable way in which to chart the spread of maize cultivation

in the Americas. Then I ask you about Nephite wheat, and you tell me that in Rome the Nephites

acted as Romans. That means no Nephite wheat then? OK -- I can believe THAT. That also means

no Lehite transfer of seeds and plants to the New World? OK -- I can believe THAT as well.

Face it --- if you had evidence for an expansive, Christian Nephite civilization in the Americas, your

scientists would be publishing those discoveries in the scientific literature, and there would be an

ongoing discussion of those discoveries in the world-wide scientific community.

But, since you can answer me nothing else, it seems -- please take the trouble to answer one important

and revelant question here: Where and when was the greatest extent of Nephite Christianity?

You need not give me an exact year nor a precise boundary of where all the synogogues and chapels

were located ---- but, by reference to your own scriptures, you should be able to answer my question

generally. If ancient America were Christian (in part or in whole), I simply want to know what you have

to say about that alleged fact.

UD

.

[Hashbaz]

please take the trouble to answer one important and revelant question here: Where and when was the greatest extent of Nephite Christianity? ...If ancient America were Christian (in part of whole), I simply want to know what you have to say about that alleged fact

I say the central religious concept in Mesoamerica was the worship of a dying and resurrecting god. Sometimes this god took the form of the Maize god, sometimes the form of the Sun god. Sometimes both. Sometimes neither. What was central was a dying and resurrecting god. To the Nephites, this dying and resurrecting god was Christ. As I stated earlier, each Mesoamerican polity had it's own unique take on religion (creation mythology, which god or gods were most prominent, etc). A curious fact about Mesoamerican gods is the fact that sometimes they are lumped into "diety complexes", and sometimes a single god is split into multiple "manifestations". We find this concept mirrored in the Book of Mormon. Sometimes Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are called "one", ie they form a "deity complex". Despite this ‘oneness,’ Christ clearly has multiple manifestations in the Book of Mormon. He appeared as a premortal spirit to the brother of Jared (Ether 3:13), was seen by Nephi in vision as an infant (1 Nephi 11:20), and descended as a resurrected being to the righteous in Bountiful (3 Nephi 11). He is known variously as a creator deity (Jacob 2:5), a destroyer (3 Nephi 9), a rain god (Ether 9:35), a god of agricultural fertility (Alma 34:24), a solar deity (1 Nephi 1:9; Helaman 14:4,20), a fire god (1 Nephi 1:6; Helaman 13:13), a king (Mosiah 2:19), a god of medicine (Alma 46:40), a shepherd (Alma 5:38), a lamb (1 Nephi 14), and even a rock (Helaman 5:12 - yes, it's metaphorical, but the Maya were likewise highly metaphorical in speech and visual arts).

With this in mind, Abinadi's description of Christ as Father/Son, Spirit/Flesh, God/Man is made infinitely more understandable when we look at it through a Mesoamerican lens of multiple manifestations of a single deity. In fact, when we use Mesoamericanist definitions of what a "god" is ("a supernatural sentient being that appears in sacred narrative" Taube, Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan, 1992:8 ) we realize that there are actually a dizzying array of gods in the Book of Mormon. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Angels, devils, the devil, angels to a devil, the Three Nephites, etc. Should we find an ancient Mesoamerican image of "concourses of angels", would scholars recognize it as such, or would they call it a pantheon of gods?

Further linking Christ and his multiple manifestation to the Sun God, the modern Ch'orti' Maya (among whom I have done fieldwork) believe the following:

They say that the Sun has not just one name. The one which he is best known by people continues to be Jesus Christ. They say that when it is just getting light its name is Child Redeemer of the world. One name is San Gregorio the Illuminator. One name is San Antonio of Judgment. One name is Child Guardian. One is Child Refuge. One is Child San Pascual. One is Child Succor. One is Child Creator. They say that at each hour, one of these is its name (Fought 1972:485) .

The problem with critics is that they expect to find Mormons in the Book of Mormon. They aren't there. Nephite Christianity looked far different from the modern Church, just as the worship and practice of modern Christianity bears little resemblance to the Primitive Church (or did they have Megachurches with Starbucks and rock bands back then?). I don't mean that the Nephites worshiped a different Christ, I mean the buildings they used, the clothes they wore, and the art they produced certainly wouldn't resemble a typical ward in Provo. My LDS friend who came from a Buddhist tradition conceptualizes Christ different than my LDS friend who came from a Jewish tradition, but both accept Him as their Savior and Redeemer. The Church museum of art in SLC has artwork contributed by faithful members from around the world that depict events from the Book of Mormon and from Church history, yet were they not assembled together in one place with clear labels, one would be hard pressed in some instances to understand that it had anything to do with the restored Gospel.

My point is, when a Nephite saw an image of a dying a resurrecting god, whatever form it took, they thought of Christ. Can we prove this? No. But think of it - would the Nephites have been out of place for worshiping a dying a resurrecting god? Would they have been out of place for having their own local triad? Would they have been out of place for offering burnt sacrifice at the altar of the temple? Would they have been out of place for using the temple as a place of instruction about creation and for enthronement? No on all counts. Their religion would not have stood out. Which is of course your criticism - that we can't prove it was there. But I maintain that the textual evidence from the Book of Mormon suggests that Nephite Christians interpreted their belief through a Mesoamerican lens, and we can better understand the Book of Mormon by understanding Mesoamerican beliefs and practices.

[Uncle Dale]

I say the central religious concept in Mesoamerica was the worship of a dying and resurrecting god. Sometimes this god took the form of the Maize god, sometimes the form of the Sun god. Sometimes both. Sometimes neither. What was central was a dying and resurrecting god. To the Nephites, this dying and resurrecting god was Christ. As I stated earlier, each Mesoamerican polity had it's own unique take on religion (creation mythology, which god or gods were most prominent, etc). A curious fact about Mesoamerican gods is the fact that sometimes they are lumped into "diety complexes", and sometimes a single god is split into multiple "manifestations". We find this concept mirrored in the Book of Mormon. Sometimes Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are called "one", ie they form a "deity complex". Despite this ‘oneness,’ Christ clearly has multiple manifestations in the Book of Mormon. He appeared as a premortal spirit to the brother of Jared (Ether 3:13), was seen by Nephi in vision as an infant (1 Nephi 11:20), and descended as a resurrected being to the righteous in Bountiful (3 Nephi 11). He is known variously as a creator deity (Jacob 2:5), a destroyer (3 Nephi 9), a rain god (Ether 9:35), a god of agricultural fertility (Alma 34:24), a solar deity (1 Nephi 1:9; Helaman 14:4,20), a fire god (1 Nephi 1:6; Helaman 13:13), a king (Mosiah 2:19), a god of medicine (Alma 46:40), a shepherd (Alma 5:38), a lamb (1 Nephi 14), and even a rock (Helaman 5:12 - yes, it's metaphorical, but the Maya were likewise highly metaphorical in speech and visual arts).

With this in mind, Abinadi's description of Christ as Father/Son, Spirit/Flesh, God/Man is made infinitely more understandable when we look at it through a Mesoamerican lens of multiple manifestations of a single deity. In fact, when we use Mesoamericanist definitions of what a "god" is ("a supernatural sentient being that appears in sacred narrative" Taube, Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan, 1992:8 ) we realize that there are actually a dizzying array of gods in the Book of Mormon. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Angels, devils, the devil, angels to a devil, the Three Nephites, etc. Should we find an ancient Mesoamerican image of "concourses of angels", would scholars recognize it as such, or would they call it a pantheon of gods?

Further linking Christ and his multiple manifestation to the Sun God, the modern Ch'orti' Maya (among whom I have done fieldwork) believe the following:

The problem with critics is that they expect to find Mormons in the Book of Mormon. They aren't there. Nephite Christianity looked far different from the modern Church, just as the worship and practice of modern Christianity bears little resemblance to the Primitive Church (or did they have Megachurches with Starbucks and rock bands back then?). I don't mean that the Nephites worshiped a different Christ, I mean the buildings they used, the clothes they wore, and the art they produced certainly wouldn't resemble a typical ward in Provo. My LDS friend who came from a Buddhist tradition conceptualizes Christ different than my LDS friend who came from a Jewish tradition, but both accept Him as their Savior and Redeemer. The Church museum of art in SLC has artwork contributed by faithful members from around the world that depict events from the Book of Mormon and from Church history, yet were they not assembled together in one place with clear labels, one would be hard pressed in some instances to understand that it had anything to do with the restored Gospel.

My point is, when a Nephite saw an image of a dying a resurrecting god, whatever form it took, they thought of Christ. Can we prove this? No. But think of it - would the Nephites have been out of place for worshiping a dying a resurrecting god? Would they have been out of place for having their own local triad? Would they have been out of place for offering burnt sacrifice at the altar of the temple? Would they have been out of place for using the temple as a place of instruction about creation and for enthronement? No on all counts. Their religion would not have stood out. Which is of course your criticism - that we can't prove it was there. But I maintain that the textual evidence from the Book of Mormon suggests that Nephite Christians interpreted their belief through a Mesoamerican lens, and we can better understand the Book of Mormon by understanding Mesoamerican beliefs and practices.

A longish reply -- and I really do appreciate your taking the time to answer.

Perhaps Mormons are nowadays teaching that the Gospel of Jesus Christ never was preached from end

to end of the Americas and that the "Land of Promise," (the land choice above all others), never was a

Christian dominion.

If so -- good for you. If not, then I have somewhere mis-read what you had to say.

Either the Gospel was meant for ALL humankind, or it was not. Either Nephite missionaries spread that

religion across their realm, until it was the one, single religion, and there were no other manner of

"ites" than Nephites, or they did not.

If Lamanite skins turned white, upon their acceptance of the Gospel, and they were thereafter counted

as Nephites ----------> then WHERE did that Gospel preaching and conversion work END?

At the border between present-day Mexico and Guatamala?

Did God place limitations upon the spread of the Gospel, saying that no Navajos, nor Apaches, nor Hopis

nor Souix would ever allowed to become converts?

You have not answered my question.

If we plan on sending out an expedition to excavate Nephite synogogues, where are we most likely to

uncover one? In northern Canada? In Florida? In Oregon? In Chili? In Argentina? In Independence, the

"Center Stake of Zion," nigh unto the "Nephite tower" that Joseph Smith, Jr. discovered in neighboring

Daviess County?

No doubt you have your answers, that satisfy you.

My answer is that ancient America never was a Christian country --- not shore to shore --- not throughout

Central America -- not in Guatamala -- nor even in a single, isolated "Nephite valley" lost in the jungle.

But then again, that is only my opinion -- and I'm perfectly happy to see you hold to your own opinion --

just so long as it is indeed YOURS and not something you have accepted from some GA without question.

UD

.

[cksalmon]

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.

I suppose you mean here by "we" the LDS Church writ large. You can't mean "we" as in "the set of all individual Mormons," I'd think, as the disavowing of the historicity of the Book of Mormon seems to be something of a common occurrence among lots of members of that particular "we."

CKS

[Daniel Peterson]

I suppose you mean here by "we" the LDS Church writ large. You can't mean "we" as in "the set of all individual Mormons," I'd think, as the disavowing of the historicity of the Book of Mormon seems to be something of a common occurrence among lots of members of that particular "we."

That depends on what you mean by "common."

I'm not sure that it's any more "common" now than it was, say, in the early 1950s or the mid-1930s. Do you have any evidence to suggest that it is?

It's obvious beyond need for comment that not everybody in a large religious denomination will hold the same opinions, be orthodox, or even be a believer. How many nominal Baptists are actually agnostics? I don't know. Do you? How many who once answered an altar call don't know believe in the deity of Christ? I have no idea, but I would be astonished if there aren't any such folks. So what?

[Severian]

But I maintain that the textual evidence from the Book of Mormon suggests that Nephite Christians interpreted their belief through a Mesoamerican lens, and we can better understand the Book of Mormon by understanding Mesoamerican beliefs and practices.

So we need to turn it at just the right angle to look at and it will all make sense?

[Hashbaz]

But then again, that is only my opinion -- and I'm perfectly happy to see you hold to your own opinion --

just so long as it is indeed YOURS and not something you have accepted from some GA without question.

I have yet to hear a GA give a discourse on the intricacies of deity complexes and multiple manifestations of gods among ancient Mesoamericans. I assure you my opinions are my own, as is my testimony.

Your questions about boundaries are compelling. I'll stew on them for a while. Archaeologically, it is clear that interaction between Mesoamerica and the Southwest was occurring, with both religious ideology and material culture being exchanged. Perhaps I should expand my thought a bit to include that.

I clearly don't have answers that will satisfy you, so I will hang my head down in defeat and slink away (which I should thank you for, since I really ought to be working on my dissertation rather than mouthing off on these boards). It's been a fun exchange, but I truly do need to lay off the board for a spell to crank out another chapter on my diss. If you see me here, please shoo me away.

[Uncle Dale]

I suppose you mean here by "we" the LDS Church writ large. You can't mean "we" as in "the set of all individual Mormons," I'd think, as the disavowing of the historicity of the Book of Mormon seems to be something of a common occurrence among lots of members of that particular "we."

CKS

Besides which -- there is an intermediate step, between profession and disavowal --

and that would be to simply side-step the issue altogether, and present Conference

talks that focus upon other aspects of the LDS religion.

Such a downplaying of the BoM historicity need not entail a disavowal of its precepts;

nor even an admission of the lack of evidence for the book's authenticity.

This is precisely what happened among the RLDS, beginning in about 1956. No major leader

ever said that he dis-believed the book or its history --- they just began to drop THAT part

of the avowal from their public testimonies.

It took about three generations to get from that point to the ongoing de-emphasis of the

book, as now carried out in Community of Christ ---- and that process helped spark a

backlash of RLDS fundamentalism, in protest.

But, guess what? Even the RLDS fundamentalists are now beginning to drop the historicity

avowal from their public testimonies.

A very slow process -- but it represents the "intermediate step" I meant to illustrate.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...so I will hang my head down in defeat

...

You've done a better job than most.

And besides, as best I recall, the current LDS leadership is not pushing the program

of converting us non-Mormons by trying to prove the book's historicty.

Good luck in your studies.

UD