Helaman 3 and Teotihuacan

[Olavarria]

Mormon 8:12

12)And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you.

In another thread I reiterated Brant Gardner's excellent argument for identifying the Gadianton's of Mormon's day as being Teotihuacanos.. I like that argument; it tastes good. However, I think its possible to view the descriptions found in Helaman 3 in another way, without discussing the identity of the last Gadiantons.

In Helaman 3, we read the description of a group of people who travel to a land that is:

1)an "exceedingly great distance" north of Nephite lands

2)a land of "large bodies of water and many rivers"

3)a place where people are expert in the use of cement.

4)a place that underwent deforestation.

From about 100 BC to 600 AD the only area in Mesoamerica that matches these four criteria is the city of Teotihuac

[Brant Gardner]

The other question to ask of Mormon as a historian is how he could have avoided that particular time-based error. What could he possibly have had access to that would provide the correct dating of Teotihuacano building phases? He certainly had some access to data from his own time. Ancient cultures did not have the presumption of change that we do--so there is quite a good logic in assuming that the present would represent the past (as it had for over 200 years by Mormon's time).

[hagoth7]

....In Helaman 3, we read the description of a group of people who travel to a land that is:

1)an "exceedingly great distance" north of Nephite lands...

First, I don't pretend to know anything about MesoAmerican culture compared to the likes of B. Gardner. It hasn't been my area of study.

However, I have two initial snags with the first premise:

1) Distance. If the narrow neck is what many are saying it is, and Nephite lands are what many are saying they were, Teotihuacan would, at best, be a week's march for a Nephite. (Based on the duration of the march to cross the oft-proposed narrow neck.) (Obviously, it would take somewhat longer for a party that included children, provisions, and animals.) That said, I don't see Teotihuacan as being a "great distance" from proposed Nephite territory. Nor does the journey seem to match Helaman's exceedingly great distance.

2) Bearing. More importantly, Teotihuacan isn't what I would describe as being north of proposed Nephite lands. Starting from where many claim Nephite lands to have been, the bearing for Teotihuacan is much closer to what I would describe as west. (And although I'm familiar with the argument that BoM compass directions are off by 90 degrees. I respectfully disagree with that argument, and instead believe that when Joseph wrote "north", he literally meant north.)

There appears to be a mismatch in both distance or bearing. Unless one tweaks compass directions and overlooks distances. In other words, unless one lets the geography define the text, instead of the other way around. Am I oversimplifying?

For a Teotihuacan argument to fit the premise of Helaman 3, it would seem that one would need to place Zarahemla south of the Yucatan.

(Or stick with the proposed region for Zarahemla, and look elsewhere for a cement-using center.)

As to Mormon perhaps making a mistake like Herodotus, I'm more partial to letting the text define the geography than the other way around.

Thoughts?

[Marmonboy]

As far as Zarahemla being south of Yucatan, some think that Z-town is the large ruin of Kaminaljuyu (sp?) in what is now the suburbs of Guatemala City. I have no opinion on whether it is or not.

[Rob Osborn]

Mormon 8:12

12)And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you.

In another thread I reiterated Brant Gardner's excellent argument for identifying the Gadianton's of Mormon's day as being Teotihuacanos.. I like that argument; it tastes good. However, I think its possible to view the descriptions found in Helaman 3 in another way, without discussing the identity of the last Gadiantons.

In Helaman 3, we read the description of a group of people who travel to a land that is:

1)an "exceedingly great distance" north of Nephite lands

2)a land of "large bodies of water and many rivers"

3)a place where people are expert in the use of cement.

4)a place that underwent deforestation.

From about 100 BC to 600 AD the only area in Mesoamerica that matches these four criteria is the city of Teotihuac

[Marmonboy]

The timbers weren't shipped in very far--most are from the local mountains, according to the archaeological data.

[Olavarria]

The tiotihuacan city is that of jaredite origin- one of the two places where the kings dwelt.

It seems to me that Teotihuacan is a little to young to ever have been a Jaredite city, where the kings dwelt.

"Two things set off the Early from the Late Classic: first, the strong Izapan element still discernible in Maya culture, and secondly, the appearance in the middle part of the Early Classic of powerful waves of influence and probably invaders from the site of Teotihuacan in central Mexico. This city was founded at about the time of Christ in a small but fertile valley opening onto the northeast side of the Valley of Mexico"(Michael Coe, The Maya 7th ed. pg88)emphasis added.

The lands spoken of in Helamen are those of the 4 corners Indians. They worked in adobe which is a type of cement. It has been shown that they were exceedingly crafted in working with this type of cement.

The advantage Teotihuacan has is that it has actual cement as opposed to mudbricks that approximate cement.

When you mean 4 corners indians do you mean the Anasazi?

1) Distance. If the narrow neck is what many are saying it is, and Nephite lands are what many are saying they were, Teotihuacan would, at best, be a week's march for a Nephite. (Based on the duration of the march to cross the oft-proposed narrow neck.) (Obviously, it would take somewhat longer for a party that included children, provisions, and animals.) That said, I don't see Teotihuacan as being a "great distance" from proposed Nephite territory. Nor does the journey seem to match Helaman's exceedingly great distance.

Your first point of contention is distance, that it isn't "exceedingly far" enough. Thats fair. "Exceedingly far" is a subjective term. What s exceedingly far for Mormon isn't nessesarily exceedingly far for you or I.

(And although I'm familiar with the argument that BoM compass directions are off by 90 degrees. I respectfully disagree with that argument, and instead believe that when Joseph wrote "north", he literally meant north.)

This is were we will have to agree to disagree. Joseph didn't write anything. He dictated what he translated from the plates, using a seer stone. The translation was made from what Mormon wrote. What Joseph understood by "north" in relation to the BoM is completly irrelevant. Just as when I translate classical chinese, my understanding of 爱(love) is completly irrelavant when discussing what Mozi meant by it.

Larry Paulson has an interesting alternative to Sorenson, in regards to directions.

http://poulsenll.org/bom/bomdirections.html

Who's right? Sorenson, Paulson or You? I dunno.

As far as Zarahemla being south of Yucatan, some think that Z-town is the large ruin of Kaminaljuyu (sp?) in what is now the suburbs of Guatemala City. I have no opinion on whether it is or not.

Really? Sorenson thinks Kaminaljuyu is Nephi, with Santa Rosa being Zarahemla.

For a Teotihuacan argument to fit the premise of Helaman 3, it would seem that one would need to place Zarahemla south of the Yucatan.

Not if the Narrow Neck is Tehuantepec.

As to Mormon perhaps making a mistake like Herodotus, I'm more partial to letting the text define the geography than the other way around.

Actually, its "a mistake like Xenophon", taking the conditions of the present and incorrectly projecting them into the past. In Xenophon's case it was currency, the Daric.

I agree with you 100% about letting the text define the geography; and I don't assume that the text is free from the errors made by real life ancient historians. Mormon was a flesh and blood, ancient historian just as Xenophon was. He was a Prophet of God, not God himself. He freely admitted to making errors in the record.

Mormon was writing his book at the same time Teotihuacan matched the description found in Helaman 3. IF Mormon was talking about Teotihuacan THEN he made an error in ascribing it's 300AD condition to 50BC.

[hagoth7]

....I agree with you 100% about letting the text define the geography; and I don't assume that the text is free from the errors made by real life ancient historians. Mormon was a flesh and blood, ancient historian just as Xenophon was. He was a Prophet of God, not God himself. He freely admitted to making errors in the record.

Mormon was writing his book at the same time Teotihuacan matched the description found in Helaman 3. IF Mormon was talking about Teotihuacan THEN he made an error in ascribing it's 300AD condition to 50BC.

Very enjoyable and interesting response. Thank you very much for replying.

[Olavarria]

Very enjoyable and interesting response. Thank you very much for replying.

Thank you my friend. Where else but MADB can I talk about this stuff? Imagine me bringing this kind of stuff up on a date.

[Joseph Antley]

Makes sense to me. I don't have a problem with making the text fit the geography since the text has to fit the geography.

[Olavarria]

Makes sense to me. I don't have a problem with making the text fit the geography since the text has to fit the geography.

"Our doctrine and practice is, and I have made it mine through life-to recieve truth no matter where it comes from." (BY in Journal of Discources 14:160)