Mesoamerican History and the Book of Mormon

[Olavarria]

OLMEC DATES(1)

2500-1500BC: The first farming villages in Mesoamerica appear. Settlers raise maize, chili peppers, squash and cotton.

1500-1200BC: Olmec build San Lorenzo. San Lorenzo was excavated by a Yale expedition between 1966 and 1969, "fully developed Olmec culture, represented typically by gigantic basalt sculptures fashioned in a distinctive style, proved to date back to 1400BC"(2).

1100BC: By this time, La Venta becomes a major Olmec site.

900BC: The Olmec site of San Lorenzo is destroyed. Olmec monuments are attacked, defaced and buried(3).

900BC: Olmec settlement spreads into areas east of Tehuantepec(4).

c. 400 BC: The Olmec site of La Venta is destroyed(5).

300 BC: In western Chiapas speakers of Tapachulteco, a Mixe-Zoquean language, establish Izapa, (6).

Sources

(1)Charles Phillips, Complete Illustrated History of the Aztec and Maya; Lorenz Books (June 25, 2007), pg 24

(2)Michael Coe, The Maya 7th Edition, pg 50.

(3)Charles Phillips, Complete Illustrated History of the Aztec and Maya; Lorenz Books (June 25, 2007), pg 29.

(4)John Clark has noted:"Given what little is known of Jaredite settlement, we need to be careful not to imagine that we know more than we do. Second, the text states that the land southward was opened up during the days of King Lib. It is worth pointing out that the explosion of Olmec influence east of Tehuantepec (Sorenson's land southward) occurred after 900 BC, with only spotty influence before. I think the text can be read as indicating that the south lands opened up at this time, with colonization being part of the package."http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=545

(5)Charles Phillips, Complete Illustrated History of the Aztec and Maya; Lorenz Books (June 25, 2007), pg 292.

(6) Michael Coe, The Maya 7th Edition. pg. 64-69: "Crucial to the problem of how higher culture came about among the Maya is the Izapan civilization, for it occupies a middle ground in time and in space between the Middle PreClassic Olmecs and the Early Classic Maya. Its hallmark is an elaborate art style, found on monuments scattered over a wide zone from Tres Zapotes on the Veracruz coast, to the Pacific plain of Chiapas and Guatemala, and up into the Guatemala City Area".

Coe also says:"That Olmecs had onced intruded here is apparent from a large boulder located less than a mile from the main group of mounds, carved in relief with a bearded were-jaguar in the purest Olmec style". In regards to the "Mayan" calender, Coe says: "Some scholars are now willing to ascribe the earliest Long Count outside the Maya area proper to Mixe-Zoquean as well".

Loan words from other languages do appear in Mayan, testifying to early contacts and contributions. Those from the Mixe-Zoquean family of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec(locus of the very early Olmec civilization) include high-culture words such as *may, "to count or divine," and *pom, "copal incense," and it has been suggested that Mixe-Zoquean was the tongue of the Olmecs(Michael Coe, The Maya 7th Edition, pg 31).

[Olavarria]

To know the time of the Jaredites we must look at the latest Jaredites on record and then count backward, from Ether to Lib. Here are the generations of a Jaredite ruling lineage from Ether down to Lib as found in Ether 1:17-30.

Ether*

Coriantor

Moron

Ethem

Ahah

Seth

Shiblon

Com

Coriantum

Amnigaddah

Aaron*

Heth

Hearthom

Lib

Kish

Corom

Levi

Kim

Morianton*

Riplakish

Shez

Heth

Com

Coriantum

Emer

Omer

Shule

Kib

Orihah

Jared

Now, the trickier part, some Jaredite kings lived really long lives. Several kings are described as being "exceedingly old" and having children in their old age, with at least one king living past 100 years(Ether 7:7 and 9:23,24)! So, how many years were in 14 generations? We don't know; we will have to approximate about 65 years(3). Our safest bets are at the 14th generation mark because Morianton does not seem to be a son of Riplakish. He might have been a son, but he also might have been a grand son, or even great-grand son(4).

JAREDITE DATES(+/- 200 Years)

2350BC: Jaredites land in New World(5).

1310BC: King Lib builds a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land. Jaredites continue to avoid settlement south of the narrowneck of land, but now begin to enter sparodically in search of game(Ether 10:19-21).

855BC: There began to be wars and contentions in all the land, and also many famines and pestilences, insomuch that there was a great destruction, such an one as never had been known upon the face of the earth; and all this came to pass in the days of Shiblom(Ether 11:5-7).

400BC: End of the Jaredite ruling lineage. If the prophesy recorded in Ether 11:20â??21 was declared before the arrival of Lehi's group then Coriantumr could not have lived no earlier than 600 B.C. If Coriantmr died just one day before Mosiah's group arrived then he could not have lived later than 200bc.

200BC: The Mulekites are discovered by Mosiah. The Mulekites act as a conduit by which some Jaredite names(Coriantmr,Morianton,Corianton) and a word for grain(sheum) are presevered among the Nephites.

Sources

(1)Ether 11: 23, "And it came to pass that Coriantor begat Ether, and he died, having dwelt in captivity all his days."

(2)Ether 10:29-31, "And he begat Heth, and Heth lived in captivity all his days. And Heth begat Aaron, and Aaron dwelt in captivity all his days; and he begat Amnigaddah, and Amnigaddah also dwelt in captivity all his days; and he begat Coriantum, and Coriantum dwelt in captivity all his days; and he begat Com."

(3)Sidney B. Sperry, Book of Mormon Chronology (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1970). These dates follow Sperry's earliest estimate of 65 years per generation in the Jaredite king list, which is more in line with an early date for Babel and the confusion of tongues. Possible time gaps in the king list have been questioned where "descendant" replaces "son." Sperry (p. 24) points out that "descendant" implies the meaning of "son," rather than indicating a generation gap. For example, the king list says, "Shez was the son of Heth" (Ether 1:25), but the text says Shez was a "descendant" of Heth (Ether 10:1). Sperry places the Jaredite destruction at about 550 BC in one estimate, but recognizes the Jaredites may have continued contemporary with the Mulekites for well over a century (pp. 23,25).http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/medi...F%20LIB.htm?n=0

(4)Ether 10:8-9, "And when he had reigned for the space of forty and two years the people did rise up in rebellion against him; and there began to be war again in the land, insomuch that Riplakish was killed, and his descendants were driven out of the land. And it came to pass after the space of many years, Morianton, (he being a descendant of Riplakish) gathered together an army of outcasts, and went forth and gave battle unto the people; and he gained power over many cities; and the war became exceedingly sore, and did last for the space of many years; and he did gain power over all the land, and did establish himself king over all the land."

(5)We have a minimum of 23 Jaredite kings, maybe more.

[Olavarria]

"To archeologists, it once seemed a very long step from the village cultures that we have thus far been considering to the awe-inspiring achievements of the Classic Maya, but we now realize that that 'great leap forward' was taken in what we know of as the Late Preclassic. The more we know about that period, which lasted from 400 or 300 BC to AD 250, the more complex and developed it seems. From the point of view of social cultural evolution, the Late Preclassic really is a kind of 'proto-Classic,' in which are present all of the traits usually ascribed to the Classic Maya, with the exception of vaulted stone architecture and a high elaboration of calendar and script on stone monuments"(1).

"As the Olmec civilization went into a steep decline c. 400BC, rapid changes took place in the Maya area. As populations rose, the southern lowlands of the peninsula became the new 'hot spot' for complexity in Mesoamerica, resulting in the building of immense cities, particularly in the Peten's Mirador Basin"(2).

"Concurrently, we see in this epoch the beginnings of Maya hieroglyphic writing and the calendar, perhaps to record the doings of kings and dynasties -a problematic topic, since we still cannot read the very earliest Maya inscriptions beyond dates"(3).

Notes

(1,2,3)Michael Coe, The Maya 7th Edition. pg. 59.

[Olavarria]

So basically you have the first civilization in Meso peaking, living above the isthmus slumping and falling at around the same times the Jaredites(who live north of the narrow neck do) then when the first civ goes into sharp decline the southerners start to incrase in population, city building and spreading out all at around the same time Lehites do the same thing.

The really funny thing about it is that Joseph assumed, up until reading Stephen's book, that the BoM was a hemispheric history. I can't fault him for this as he was just a translater of the book and not it's writer.

[shrff]

Are there any believers besides the North Americanists and the Andean advocates who question a relationship between the Olmec and the Jaredites? John Clark argued something very similar to this in his Worlds of Joseph Smith paper.

[Cold Steel]

That anyone is even still arguing for a Great Lakes model is beyond me. Trying to place the Book of Mormon anywhere else other than Mesoamerica, and especially Peru, has been a monumental waste of time. I have no doubt but that Nephites went northward into what is now the southwest portion of the United States, but the Book of Mormon lands pretty much fit nowhere except Mesoamerica.

I just don't understand why the Olmecs would name their cities La Venta and San Lorenzo! Hmmm. Must have been Catholics....

[Sevenbak]

That anyone is even still arguing for a Great Lakes model is beyond me. Trying to place the Book of Mormon anywhere else other than Mesoamerica, and especially Peru, has been a monumental waste of time. I have no doubt but that Nephites went northward into what is now the southwest portion of the United States, but the Book of Mormon lands pretty much fit nowhere except Mesoamerica.

I just don't understand why the Olmecs would name their cities La Venta and San Lorenzo! Hmmm. Must have been Catholics....

I don't know of many arguing for a Limited Great Lakes model, but including it and the NY Cumorah into a hemispheric model is certainly accepted by many, including the early brethren. Myself included. I'm most definitely and emphatically old school.

I also think that many ancient ruins in Mesoamerica that predate the Jaredites come from the Adamic peoples pre-flood. Guatemala juts out into the Gulf of Mexico, from which we know Enoch's city was taken.

[BCSpace]

Guatemala juts out into the Gulf of Mexico, from which we know Enoch's city was taken.

How do we know that the city of Enoch was in the locale of the Gulf of Mexico?

[Olavarria]

I just don't understand why the Olmecs would name their cities La Venta and San Lorenzo! Hmmm. Must have been Catholics....

HAHA. That illustrates a very important point. Outside the BoM, do we know the names of any mesoamerican before 300AD? Do we know the names of any mesoamerican city prior to 300ad? As far as I have read, no. So for critics to pull the old "I can honeymoon in Rome but not in Zarahemla" is really using a lame argument against the BoM.

[shrff]

I have no doubt but that Nephites went northward into what is now the southwest portion of the United States

I have a lot of doubts about this. The American Southwest prior to A.D. 400 was not at all consistent with the cultures described in the BOM, and there is a lot of cultural continuity in the archaeology of this time period that is inconsistent with a major migration of people from the south.

[poulsenll]

I also think that many ancient ruins in Mesoamerica that predate the Jaredites come from the Adamic peoples pre-flood. Guatemala juts out into the Gulf of Mexico, from which we know Enoch's city was taken.

Sevenbak,

Guatemala is on the Pacific coast nowhere near the Gulf of Mexico. You need to look at a good map of Central America.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

I have a lot of doubts about this. The American Southwest prior to A.D. 400 was not at all consistent with the cultures described in the BOM, and there is a lot of cultural continuity in the archaeology of this time period that is inconsistent with a major migration of people from the south.

I agree with you. There is no question that the Book of Mormon speaks of migrations in the north. The archealogy is more concistent with migrations into northern Mexico and the Mississippi valley.

Larry P

[Scottie]

That anyone is even still arguing for a Great Lakes model is beyond me. Trying to place the Book of Mormon anywhere else other than Mesoamerica, and especially Peru, has been a monumental waste of time. I have no doubt but that Nephites went northward into what is now the southwest portion of the United States, but the Book of Mormon lands pretty much fit nowhere except Mesoamerica.

Funny how the ones with actual authority to make claims, aka the apostles, as to where the BoM is located are still referencing the hemispheric model. It's only apologists who insist on the LGT.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Funny how the ones with actual authority to make claims, aka the apostles, as to where the BoM is located are still referencing the hemispheric model. It's only apologists who insist on the LGT.

THey are? I know some speculated on the past, but I am not aware of any quote that really carries any waite esp recently about were the BoM lands are.

[Olavarria]

Funny how the ones with actual authority to make claims, aka the apostles, as to where the BoM is located are still referencing the hemispheric model. It's only apologists who insist on the LGT.

Harold B. Lee (President) in 1966 Harold B. Lee, â??Loyalty,â? address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 172â??173.

Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, heâ??d have given us latitude and longitude, donâ??t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?

Dallin H. Oaks (Council of the Twelve)Dallin H. Oaks, "Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies Annual Dinner Provo, Utah, 29 October 1993; cited in Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994): 2â??3.

Here [bYU, 1950s] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity [i.e. those who argue that the Book of Mormon is not a literally true record, as it claims] must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular Eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas

[Scottie]

THey are? I know some speculated on the past, but I am not aware of any quote that really carries any waite esp recently about were the BoM lands are.

I don't think I would regard JS statements as "speculation". He was quite firm in his beliefs which strongly support a hemispheric model.

While it is true that more recent leaders haven't produced any new revelation regarding this insignificant detail, they have used JS statements. Which, to me, means they must believe them to be true. It is only in apologetics that we even see the LGT.

So, once again I have to question the validity of revelation in the LDS church. Shouldn't the spirit be raising some kind of red flag when the prophets are going to preach false information?

[Scottie]

As a side note: What do you all think of the Book of Mormon tours where they claim that you will see actual BoM sites? How can they claim this if nobody knows where BoM sites are?

[BCSpace]

Funny how the ones with actual authority to make claims, aka the apostles, as to where the BoM is located are still referencing the hemispheric model. It's only apologists who insist on the LGT.

All of the apostles and prophets(as per the definition of doctrine in the link in my siggy)embraced the possibility of an LGT in 1984 with the publication of Sorenson's two-part article on BoM archeology in the Ensign.

[BCSpace]

As a side note: What do you all think of the Book of Mormon tours where they claim that you will see actual BoM sites? How can they claim this if nobody knows where BoM sites are?

I think they are taking advantage of gullible people in order to increase their business. They may of course use subtle disclaimer language but they are indeed playing on people's faith to their advantage (this is certainly a baptismal font, this is cetainly an LDS-like temple, etc.).

[Olavarria]

Funny how the ones with actual authority to make claims, aka the apostles, as to where the BoM is located are still referencing the hemispheric model. It's only apologists who insist on the LGT.

Are they? To make such a claim, you would need to take a survey of all the members of the 1st Presidency and Q of 12 and ask them to choose between LGT and HGT.

I think its funny that Gordon B. Hinckley said: "FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. . . . I see a bright future for this effort now through the university."

Now, that isn't a blanket endorsement of everything that FARMS publishes or even of LGT. But it's a long way from a refutation. Let's not forget that Elder Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks have been published by FARMs with Oaks giving a tacit thumbs up to LGT http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=30

Again, not a blanket endorsement of LGT but kinda wierd if the idea is heretical.

If, as Harold B Lee says, the geography hasn't been revealed by God then what's wrong with diggin in ourselves?

The fact remains, the developement of meso-civ parallels the BoM in both time and space. Why is that? That is a different questian for a another day.

[Scottie]

Are they? To make such a claim, you would need to take a survey of all the members of the 1st Presidency and Q of 12 and ask them to choose between LGT and HGT.

I think its funny that Gordon B. Hinckley said: "FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. . . . I see a bright future for this effort now through the university."

Now, that isn't a blanket endorsement of everything that FARMS publishes or even of LGT. But it's a long way from a refutation. Let's not forget that Elder Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks have been published by FARMs with Oaks giving a tacit thumbs up to LGT http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=30

Again, not a blanket endorsement of LGT but kinda wierd if the idea is heretical.

If, as Harold B Lee says, the geography hasn't been revealed by God then what's wrong with diggin in ourselves?

The fact remains, the developement of meso-civ parallels the BoM in both time and space. Why is that? That is a different questian for a another day.

Good points. I can accept that the FP has endorsed the use of FAIR and FARMS as an extension of the church.

[Olavarria]

As a side note: What do you all think of the Book of Mormon tours where they claim that you will see actual BoM sites? How can they claim this if nobody knows where BoM sites are?

Since I've never been on one, I don't know.

If I were running a "BoM tour" in mesoamerica it would actually be a " Pre-Classic Mesoamerican tour with the Book of Mormon as a study guide". I definatly wouldn't tell them that Izapa Stela 5 was a depiction of 1 Nephi 8. If anything, I would debunk the idea while on the tour.

[Scottie]

I think they are taking advantage of gullible people in order to increase their business. They may of course use subtle disclaimer language but they are indeed playing on people's faith to their advantage (this is certainly a baptismal font, this is cetainly an LDS-like temple, etc.).

I'm not sure gullible is the right word. I would say ignorant.

There seems to be this mistaken idea in the general membership that there are boatloads of supporting evidence coming out of South America. Which, I guess you could say the members are gullible to believe this on nothing more than "I heard from someone..."

[krose]

Dallin Oaks quote:

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity [i.e. those who argue that the Book of Mormon is not a literally true record, as it claims] must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular Eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas

First off, I applaud the change to what I assume is your real name. That's a good Basko name if I ever saw one. Spanish side or French?

Anyway, does anyone else find it odd that Oaks would say that by simply limiting the claim of BoM lands and people, the burden of proof shifts to critics of the book's historicity? They now must prove that the Nephites and Lamanites did not exist somewhere, sometime, on the two continents? I don't see it. The burden still lies with those who make the extraordinary claim that a portion of the ancient Americans were sea-faring immigrants from Israel, and were separate from those who migrated from Asia 12,000+ years ago.

[Scottie]

Anyway, does anyone else find it odd that Oaks would say that by simply limiting the claim of BoM lands and people, the burden of proof shifts to critics of the book's historicity? They now must prove that the Nephites and Lamanites did not exist somewhere, sometime, on the two continents? I don't see it. The burden still lies with those who make the extraordinary claim that a portion of the ancient Americans were sea-faring immigrants from Israel, and were separate from those who migrated from Asia 12,000+ years ago.

I think this is to refute Southerton's DNA claims, basically challenging Southerton to "prove" that the BoM is not real. Since the apologists had now isolated the BoM into some fragment of the larger population, it is impossible for him to make his claims.

*Edit: Changed Sorenson to Southerton.