Trees

[John Larsen]

"I just don't see how these supposed Mesoamericans were making their cities of cement without trees."

I'm no authority on cement but you can build a nice hot fire with scrub brush. Timber needed for wood construction would of course be from large trees. Any wood will do for a fire. Also, whether significant or not they have a major termite problem down there, that's why hardly anybody builds with wood in Mexico today.

I think the point, that is being driven at, is that the book of Mormon states that they built with cement because there were no trees. However archeology shows that there were no trees because of the plaster (cement) production--they cleared wider and wider swaths of forest land to coke their lime furnaces. The difference is subtle but key.

[USU78]

I think the point, that is being driven at, is that the book of Mormon states that they built with cement because there were no trees. However archeology shows that there were no trees because of the plaster (cement) production--they cleared wider and wider swaths of forest land to coke their lime furnaces. The difference is subtle but key.

It's only "key" if you cannot or choose not to understand the difference between "G-d-breathed" and "G-d-dictated." We don't assume prophetic writers always know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to science: just because Mormon (or whoever wrote that stuff in Helaman) thought the cement came because of the lack of trees instead of the cement causing the lack of trees doesn't mean he knew.

USU "Who knows JL knows these issues quite well, but it amuses him to feign ignorance" 78

[katherine the great]

Brant, the text clearly states that they were making houses out of cement when there were no trees. How did they make the cement?

Do you really need trees to make fire? How about grasses, dried plants and shrubs, coal, animal fat, etc.

[Sevenbak]

I don't think the Nephites were using any type of version of kiln fired Portland Cement.

[beastie]

Do you really need trees to make fire? How about grasses, dried plants and shrubs, coal, animal fat, etc.

As I said, I'm not an expert on cement-making in general, but I do know that scholars state that an extremely intense fire is needed, and that the only way Mesoamericans were able to obtain this intense type of heat was through the constant burning of trees. Do you all really think that the same sort of intense, constant heat could be produced with shrubs and plants?

Re coal: I don't remember coal being used in Mesoamerica at all.

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, the text clearly states that they were making houses out of cement when there were no trees. How did they make the cement?

Beastie: The question isn't about what the text says. The question is what historical texts say. You are suggesting that historical texts necessarily get cause and effect accurate to our modern understanding. I am wondering why you think so. I am wondering why you are applying this type of reasoning to a historical text, when historians would not do so.

[beastie]

Beastie: The question isn't about what the text says. The question is what historical texts say. You are suggesting that historical texts necessarily get cause and effect accurate to our modern understanding. I am wondering why you think so. I am wondering why you are applying this type of reasoning to a historical text, when historians would not do so.

I will try to be more explicit in my comments.

Apologists, including yourself, make the argument that the Helaman text is a "hit" to Mesoamerica due to the Teotihuacan connection to deforestation and cement. You have argued that Mormon engaged in some time-shifting, so to speak, and was actually describing Teotihuacan from his lifetime, around 400 AD.

To understand the point I am trying to make, itâ??s necessary to review Teotihuacanâ??s timeline:

Teotihuacan arose as a new religious center in the Mexican Highland, around the time of Christ. Although its incipient period (the first two centuries B.C.) is poorly understood, archaeological data show that the next two centuries (Tzacualli to Miccaotli phases; A.D. 1-200) were characterized by monumental construction, during which Teotihuacan quickly became the largest and most populous urban center in the New World. By this time, the city already appears to have expanded to approximately 20 square km, with about 60,000 to 80,000 inhabitants (Millon 1981:221). The development of the city seems to have involved inter-site population movements, exploitation of natural resources, an increase in agricultural production, technological inventions, establishment of trading systems and other kinds of socio-political organizations, and attractive belief systems. By the fourth century, unmistakable influences of Teotihuacan were felt throughout most parts of Mesoamerica. Teotihuacan was the sixth largest city in the world during its period of greatest prosperity, according to an estimated population of 125,000 (Millon 1993:33). The city seems to have functioned for centuries as a well-developed urban center until its rather sudden collapse, possibly in the seventh century. The place was called Teotihuacan by Nahuatl speakers several centuries after the city's fall, but its original name, the language or languages spoken there, and the ethnic groups who built the city are still unknown.

http://archaeology.asu.edu/teo/intro/intrteo.htm

So Teotihuacanâ??s fall occurred around 300 years post-Mormon. The deforestation is connected to the downfall of Teotihuacan. For your theory to be correct, that deforestation would have already been in the past tense, so to speak, by the time of Mormon. According to your theory, Mormon is talking about the Teotihuacan from his lifetime, not the earlier Teotihuacan. So by 400 AD, Teotihuacan would have already been deforested. Yet the downfall of Teotihuacan did not occur until 700 AD. At 400 AD, Teotihuacan would still have been at its zenith. From Teotihuacan, by Esther Pasztory, page 249:

How could this collapse have come about? According to Millonâ??s reconstruction of the last years of Teotihuacan, there is no evidence of cultural or economic decline, although Teotihuacanâ??s contacts with other cultures were less intensive after AD 600. Clearly projects were going on at Teotihuacan, large blocks of greenstone were in palaces not yet cut into masks or figures.

(snip description of ritual burning)

If Millonâ??s scenario is correct, it suggests that the balanced system of Teotihuacan integration began to fall apart toward AD 700. The material evidence for this scenario is minimal. The process of moving back outside the city began before AD 600, although they city was not yet losing population. The presence of enthroned figures is especially important in the Metepec phase (AD 600-750), suggesting either more personalized rule or greater emphasis on personalized rulership in the cults of the households. Researchers also have suggested an ecological theory of collapse: to burn the huge qualities of limestone that were needed to make all the plaster necessary to surface the Avenue and buildings, Teotihuacan may have cut down the forests of the surrounding hills. This deforestation may have led to poorer retention of water in the soil, resulting in the failure of crops.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vclgHOQay...num=2#PPA250,M1

So you are suggesting that the deforestation that was partially responsible for Teotihuacanâ??s collapse in 700 AD had already occurred by 400 AD, three hundred years prior to the collapse.

To try and boil down my point to the essence: whether or not Mormon got the causation correct, he is still describing an almost completely deforested Teotihuacan before 400 AD. Yet we know, from history, that Teotihuacan remained a powerful force for the next 300 years. To support your assertion, you will have to provide evidence that Teotihuacan was almost completely deforested by 400 AD, and how the city remained powerful and successful in that state of deforestation for 300 more years. This may be difficult given the fact that scholars directly connect the deforestation to the collapse.

BTW, even though they covered their buildings with plaster, they did use a lot of wood in the actual construction of the building, as well, under the plaster.

[charity]

Two comments:

First, prophets often wrote about what they thought a scientific explanation was, but they didn't know the science. Joshua didn't make the sun stand stilll, because as we all know the sun does not move in the sky the way it appears to do. But it looked that way to Joshua.

Second, I think the point of this correlation is that deforestation has occurred. It is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and there is archeological evidence, as well. But nobody is saying that the scriptural account and the archeological account are one and the same. Except Beastie is trying to get everyone to think that claim has been made just so she can shoot it down.

[beastie]

First, prophets often wrote about what they thought a scientific explanation was, but they didn't know the science. Joshua didn't make the sun stand stilll, because as we all know the sun does not move in the sky the way it appears to do. But it looked that way to Joshua.

Ok.

Second, I think the point of this correlation is that deforestation has occurred. It is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and there is archeological evidence, as well. But nobody is saying that the scriptural account and the archeological account are one and the same. Except Beastie is trying to get everyone to think that claim has been made just so she can shoot it down.

I did not accuse anyone of saying the scriptural account and the archeological account are one and the same.

I think my point is simple and clear. BoM apologists assert that the deforestation of Teotihuacan is a â??hitâ? for BoM based on Helaman. They first make that argument by asserting that Mormon engaged in unnoted â??time shiftingâ?, so to speak, and was actually describing Teotihuacan of his time period, roughly 400 AD. Clearly Mormon did not understand the causal relationship between deforestation and the production of cement. Iâ??ll accept that. But he was just as clearly still describing an area that had already been deforested as of 400 AD, and archaeology does not support that.

[charity]

I did not accuse anyone of saying the scriptural account and the archeological account are one and the same.

I think my point is simple and clear. BoM apologists assert that the deforestation of Teotihuacan is a â??hitâ? for BoM based on Helaman. They first make that argument by asserting that Mormon engaged in unnoted â??time shiftingâ?, so to speak, and was actually describing Teotihuacan of his time period, roughly 400 AD. Clearly Mormon did not understand the causal relationship between deforestation and the production of cement. Iâ??ll accept that. But he was just as clearly still describing an area that had already been deforested as of 400 AD, and archaeology does not support that.

I didn't see anyone here claim a hit for the Book of Mormon by any attempt at "time shifting." Can't you see that what is being suggested here is patterns? And also that Joseph Smith himself had no experience with large areas of land being devastatingly deforested? Large scale harvesting of timber in the US did not occur until the mid to late 1870's in very limited ares even then. Even then, there wasn't the clear cut technology that came later.

[beastie]

I didn't see anyone here claim a hit for the Book of Mormon by any attempt at "time shifting." Can't you see that what is being suggested here is patterns? And also that Joseph Smith himself had no experience with large areas of land being devastatingly deforested? Large scale harvesting of timber in the US did not occur until the mid to late 1870's in very limited ares even then. Even then, there wasn't the clear cut technology that came later.

Iâ??m also referring to past arguments Iâ??ve seen other apologists, including Brant, make in this regard. I apologize for erroneously assuming most posters already had familiarity with those past arguments. Brantâ??s website is no longer extant, but Jeff Lindsay helpfully quotes the pertinent section on his website:

The essential elements [in Helaman 3:3-7] that allow us to make a tentative identification of this area are:

Northward

Many waters

Desolate of trees

Buildings of cement

From perhaps 100 BC to 600 AD there is one area in Mesoamerica that fits all of these descriptions, and that it Teotihuacan. It is north of the Nephite (and Jaredite) lands. It is near the lake that used to occupy the current site of Mexico City. The lack of trees and the environmental imbalance created by denuding the land of trees is hypothesized as a major factor in creating the downfall of Teotihuacan. One of the reasons for the lack of trees was the creation of the cement with which their buildings were built (George C. Vaillant. Aztecs of Mexico. Penguin Books, 1966, pp. 78-9O). There is only one area in Mesoamerica that fits this description well, and that is Teotihuacan.

Historical/ Historiographical: In spite of the accuracy of this description of Teotihuacan, there is nevertheless a major problem with the fit. That problem is one of timing. The particular condition of the area being devoid of trees does not describe the Teotihuacan of 49 BC, but rather the Teotihuacan of 350AD and later.

What we have in this case is Mormon describing the Teotihuacan that he knows in his own time, and assuming that it was the same at the time of this part of his history. When Mormon describes this people who leave, he is describing a group of people who do not return, and of whom Mormon would have no record. Mormon therefore has no historical document before him that would accurately describe the land northward to which these people emigrated. Nevertheless Mormon describes that land in great detail.

If Mormon has no historical record to tell him where the people went, and has no historical record to tell him what that land was like, how does he describe it so thoroughly? It is Mormon who makes the association between this group of people and the city of Teotihuacan for his own purposes. He describes that city and land from the perspective of his own time, because that it what he knows. . . .

[in Hel. 3:5,] Mormon gives us this quick statement that the people went into areas that "had not been rendered desolate and without timber." On the surface, this would appear to be a very unusual statement for the Mesoamerican area in which we are placing the Book of Mormon. This is a land of heavy forestation. Where would they have gone that even might have been "desolate and without timber?" The answer lies in the population explosion and the effects of population on the land. This land has had over a thousand years to recover, and it is only recently that scientists are beginning to discover that this land of jungle had been stripped of trees as a result of the high density of certain Mesoamerican populations and their lifestyle. One of the earlier cities to suffer extinction was the great metropolis of El Mirador:

"But in the second and third centuries AD disruptions and catastrophe hit the Maya world. About AD 150, El Mirador seems to have collapsed quite suddenly. Until very recently, it was a mystery why this had occurred. Archaeologists had found signs of violence in the city centre. Many monuments and most of the stelae recovered here were found smashed. Were they invaded by their enemies? Yet the signs of abandonment were almost total and it seemed extraordinary that such a great power should fold so completely. Today the findings of climatologists and soil scientists are suggesting environmental reasons for El Mirador's demise.- For the tens of thousands of people congregated in the area would very quickly have destroyed the forest cover for miles around.

"They cut down trees to cook, to fire pottery and above all to burn the lime to produce ton after ton of lime plaster for endless construction projects and repairs to buildings and reservoirs. As they did this, the climate began to change. After about AD 100 it became drier across this part of the lowlands, a cyclical phenomenon which was to last for about four hundred years. This increased aridity may well have been enhanced locally by the scale of deforestation. And when it did rain, the water ran soil and sediment from the denuded landscape into the once-fertile swamps. In due course they dried up." (David Drew. The Lost Chronicles of the Maya Kings. University of California Press, 1999, p. 145-6).

This same fate awaited the great city of Tikal. It is hard to imagine today when most of the worldâ??s image of Tikal comes from the first Star Wars movie where Tikalâ??s temples rising from a dense jungle was the picture used for the "rebel base" at the end of that movie. In the Late Classic, someone standing on one of those same temples would have seen virtually no trees for as far as vision could perceive. Pollen samples and lake-bed cores indicate a very high degree of deforestation at that time -- not coincidentally not long before the collapse of the once powerful city. (David Drew, 1999, p. 345).

Not surprisingly, it is this same deforestation that is suggested as one of the major causes of the downfall of Teotihuacan, which was beginning during Mormonâ??s lifetime. What we see from Mormon is an accurate depiction of the world around him, but imputed to an earlier time.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/hela...orestation.html

I bolded the sentence that demonstrates the time-shifting argument.

BTW, Brant is incorrect in his assertion that there is no way for Mormon to know where the people actually went, because communication must have continued in the â??shipping of timberâ?. But that is a minor point.

You are also incorrect in your assertion that deforestation would have been an unknown phenomenon to Joseph Smith. In fact, deforestation was a problem for the New England area in the 1800s.

http://www.sprol.com/?p=333

Most people associate New England with vast, thick, beautiful forests. But less than 150 years ago, much of the New England countryside had been laid waste by settlers in need of lumber for homes and businesses, and open fields for agriculture and livestock.

The settling of New England by immigrating Europeans took place mostly in the eighteenth century. As people began making their way to America, the Colonial government gave large pieces of land to groups of people known as â??proprietorsâ??. Often made up of 6-10 families (sometimes more), these groups had a select number of years to develop the land. â??Developingâ? meant clearing the forest to create open spaces for crops and livestock, and cutting down trees for houses, fences, and businesses.

The peak of the deforestation occurred between 1830 and 1880. It is estimated that, with the exception of northern Maine and the more mountainous regions, nearly 80% of forested regions in New England had been cleared during this time.

Consequently, New England saw a shift in wildlife as well. Where wolves, turkeys, beavers, moose, and cougars once roamed, there was an influx of open-land species like skunks, meadowlarks, rabbits, and foxes.

http://www.memorialhall.mass.edu/turns/theme.jsp?x=2&y=4

By the early 1800s, a century and a half of European settlement and land use had transformed the landscape of the eastern seaboard. In New England, town commons took on a park-like appearance and their public role expanded. Agriculture remained the major occupation throughout the nation but more farmers had more equipment and some experimented with new agricultural methods. The deforestation of much of southern New England altered the landscape and caused a wood shortage there by the early 1800s. Americans pushed the frontier farther and farther west, lured by the prospect of cheap, limitless land and economic prosperity. American enthusiasm and optimism about the seemingly-limitless potential of the new nation abounded. Industry flourished and canals, turnpikes and other infrastructure projects captured the imagination of the new nation. In the home, change arrived in the form of neo-classical architecture and floor plans emphasized a new interest in separating public from domestic life.

[charity]

Beastie, I guess you didn't read what you posted. Or maybe you missed the beginning date of 1830. Or did you forget when the Book of Mormon was translated. Even then, the cutting down of trees in New England hardly amounted to deforestation as mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where there were no trees to use for buildings and they had to resort to cement.

[beastie]

Beastie, I guess you didn't read what you posted. Or maybe you missed the beginning date of 1830. Or did you forget when the Book of Mormon was translated. Even then, the cutting down of trees in New England hardly amounted to deforestation as mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where there were no trees use for buildings and they had to resort to cement.

Again, that's not why they had to "resort to cement" in Mesoamerica. You are making the same reversal error as Mormon. The Mesoamericans didn't make plaster because they had no trees. They had no trees because they used too many of them to build houses and make the intense fires needed to make cement. I can understand Mormon, and you, making this reversal error, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation in Mesoamerica. Teotihuacan suffered the effects of deforestation around its decline in 700 AD, not 400 AD. Teotihuacan was still thriving at 400 AD.

Regarding the dating of the New England deforestation, do you imagine that the deforestation suddenly sprang up out of nowhere in 1830? Let me share a couple of sentences you seemed to have ignored in the linked essays:

The peak of the deforestation occurred between 1830 and 1880.

This does not state or imply that the deforestation was already en route by 1830 - in fact, it had to be already occurring for the PEAK to occur by 1830.

The deforestation of much of southern New England altered the landscape and caused a wood shortage there by the early 1800s.

[JangoStango]

Even then, the cutting down of trees in New England hardly amounted to deforestation as mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where there were no trees to use for buildings and they had to resort to cement.

Joseph Smith wasn't necessarily bound by his own observations of New England. He could be creative, and in his version the people used cement when they ran out of wood. If that doesn't make historical sense because you need wood to make cement, oh well! Not everything in a fictional work should be expected to make sense. There are many other things to enjoy about the Book of Mormon.

[beastie]

Joseph Smith wasn't necessarily bound by his own observations of New England. He could be creative, and in his version the people used cement when they ran out of wood. If that doesn't make historical sense because you need wood to make cement, oh well! Not everything in a fictional work should be expected to make sense. There are many other things to enjoy about the Book of Mormon.

I concur. There are some teachings in the BoM that I still consider "true", even as an atheist.

[John Larsen]

Joseph Smith wasn't necessarily bound by his own observations of New England. He could be creative, and in his version the people used cement when they ran out of wood. If that doesn't make historical sense because you need wood to make cement, oh well! Not everything in a fictional work should be expected to make sense. There are many other things to enjoy about the Book of Mormon.

To me, many of Joseph's creations in the book are "just so" to explain what he may have heard or been aware of. For example, it was well known that the Southwest was a desolate land and it separated the fertile lands of the North from the Jungles of the South. The Book of Mormon "explains" how this could be so. It was also well known that there were Indian cities made of adobe, in places were there were no trees. To me, the Book describes Indians as might have been perceived by a young man in the early 19th century who had a proclivity to fill in the details.

[charity]

If you really want to make the argument that Joseph Smith simply repeated an idea that was already out there, you need to show where there were historical evidences that cultures had used up the majority of trees in the area, and then had to use other materials. And then show where it was to be found in books available to Joseph Smith. Then we have another book to add to his extensive library in the barn.

Oh, yes, and I think much of this discussion has confused the terms "cement" and "concrete." Cement is used to hold concrete blocks or stone blocks together.

[beastie]

If you really want to make the argument that Joseph Smith simply repeated an idea that was already out there, you need to show where there were historical evidences that cultures had used up the majority of trees in the area, and then had to use other materials. And then show where it was to be found in books available to Joseph Smith. Then we have another book to add to his extensive library in the barn.

Oh, yes, and I think much of this discussion has confused the terms "cement" and "concrete." Cement is used to hold concrete blocks or stone blocks together.

Charity,

There is obviously nothing that will meet your standards. I already provided evidence that deforestation of the area in which JS himself lived was an ongoing problem for that time period. The sources specifically stated this caused a wood shortage by the early 1800s. Yet this is still not adequate for you. In your view, it is nothing short of miraculous that JS could have included such a detail - a detail obviously unknown to folks in his time period without an extensive library.

Apologists who have made much of this as a Teotihuacan connection will be disappointed by your insistence on technicalities, because Teotihuacan and other Mesoamerican polities used limestone to create a plaster to cover the wood frames underneath. This is what they think is meant by "cement" in the BoM. However, perhaps they will take your advice and be more precise in the future, even at the cost of abandoning this entire Teotihuacan connection.

[beastie]

To me, many of Joseph's creations in the book are "just so" to explain what he may have heard or been aware of. For example, it was well known that the Southwest was a desolate land and it separated the fertile lands of the North from the Jungles of the South. The Book of Mormon "explains" how this could be so. It was also well known that there were Indian cities made of adobe, in places were there were no trees. To me, the Book describes Indians as might have been perceived by a young man in the early 19th century who had a proclivity to fill in the details.

I concur with your opinion. IIRC, contemporary nonbelievers viewed the BoM as specifically attempting to explain the moundbuilder civilization in the vicinity.

IMO, the BoM is a religious myth that captured the nineteenth century ideas about the origins of Native Americans. Religious myths are a part of all religions. My sole objection to the BoM debate is the insistence that it is actual history of an ancient American civilization. That isn't a religious claim, but rather an historical claim that is open to scrutiny.

[charity]

Charity,

There is obviously nothing that will meet your standards. I already provided evidence that deforestation of the area in which JS himself lived was an ongoing problem for that time period. The sources specifically stated this caused a wood shortage by the early 1800s. Yet this is still not adequate for you. In your view, it is nothing short of miraculous that JS could have included such a detail - a detail obviously unknown to folks in his time period without an extensive library.

Apologists who have made much of this as a Teotihuacan connection will be disappointed by your insistence on technicalities, because Teotihuacan and other Mesoamerican polities used limestone to create a plaster to cover the wood frames underneath. This is what they think is meant by "cement" in the BoM. However, perhaps they will take your advice and be more precise in the future, even at the cost of abandoning this entire Teotihuacan connection.

Actually, I haven't seen anything in the history of the US in the 1800's that comes up to the level of deforestation mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Just exaclty where do your sources say that the people in New England had to live in tents because they had so little wood, as it says the people in the Book of Mormon did?

And you keep insisting on me making a connection between Teotihuacan and specific Book of Mormon locations. Which I have never done. I told you before, but you ignored, it is "patterns" that are important. But then, of course, ignoring what people post is very much a beastie pattern.

[beastie]

Actually, I haven't seen anything in the history of the US in the 1800's that comes up to the level of deforestation mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Just exaclty where do your sources say that the people in New England had to live in tents because they had so little wood, as it says the people in the Book of Mormon did?

And you keep insisting on me making a connection between Teotihuacan and specific Book of Mormon locations. Which I have never done. I told you before, but you ignored, it is "patterns" that are important. But then, of course, ignoring what people post is very much a beastie pattern.

I haven't once insisted that you are making the Teotihuacan connection. I quoted an essay from Brant Gardner making that connection, and other apologists have followed his lead and made it as well. In fact, in the very post you replied to, complaining I ignore what you said, I specifically said the APOLOGISTS would have to abandon the Teotihuacan connection.

I've already stated your standards are impossible to meet. You don't care the deforestation was a serious problem for New England, causing a wood shortage. As long as people weren't "living in tents", it couldn't possibly be relevant. (btw, people weren't living in tents in Mesoamerica, either)

So what significance is the "pattern", Charity, when the deforestation in question actually occurred hundreds of years post-Mormon?

[charity]

I haven't once insisted that you are making the Teotihuacan connection. I quoted an essay from Brant Gardner making that connection, and other apologists have followed his lead and made it as well. In fact, in the very post you replied to, complaining I ignore what you said, I specifically said the APOLOGISTS would have to abandon the Teotihuacan connection.

I've already stated your standards are impossible to meet. You don't care the deforestation was a serious problem for New England, causing a wood shortage. As long as people weren't "living in tents", it couldn't possibly be relevant. (btw, people weren't living in tents in Mesoamerica, either)

So what significance is the "pattern", Charity, when the deforestation in question actually occurred hundreds of years post-Mormon?

The "impossible to meet" argument is a nice try at sidestepping the issue. We all know that words are important. And often times hard to pin down precisely. What does "deforestation" mean? Obviosuly, "deforestation" in New England meant a slight inconvenience, because we don't find anyone living in tents because there is no wood to build a house with. The situation obviously was much different in the area described in the Book of Mormon. People who lived in a culture where there were houses built of wood, were being forced to live in tents because there was so little wood. What is so hard to see about that.

So you didn't say I talked about Teotihuacan. So in posts replying to me, don't refer to that. Simple. You keep going down rabbitt trails in order to distract away from a cogent argument.

[juliann]

I specifically said the APOLOGISTS

That might mean something if you weren't an apologist of the first order.

[juliann]

IMO, the BoM is a religious myth that captured the nineteenth century ideas about the origins of Native Americans. Religious myths are a part of all religions. My sole objection to the BoM debate is the insistence that it is actual history of an ancient American civilization. That isn't a religious claim, but rather an historical claim that is open to scrutiny.

Now you are an expert in 19th century American history as well as the ancient history of the entire South American continent? Awesome. We all want to hear more about those New England forests. With references.

[John Larsen]

That might mean something if you weren't an apologist of the first order.

Are you suggesting that saying "an apologist of the first order" is some kind of insult? Ouch! I would think you would equate first order apologetics with a preferred status.